Jake Smith on Twitter: "Judge Koh is the new Judge Judy. Just thought that was funny. It has absolutely nothing to do with the thread, but I thought is funny.
If Apple wins, how would its stock be affected? If it loses?
Not one iota either way. The iHaters say Apple has taken a PR hit by even daring to sue Samsung. Today's stock price would seem to argue against that. But then the iHaters live in some alternate universe where everything Apple does makes them look bad in the eyes of the public at large and will doom the company RSN.
I suppose you all saw the Dog and Pony show yesterday in San Jose where Governor Moonbeam and the SJ Mayor were falling over themselves to get down and kiss the feet of the head of Samsung when he came to town to promise to open a new office. It was a truly disgusting show. Of course the size of the facility and the number of hires is yet to be disclosed, but the local politicos are all in a lather about how wonderful this will be and are making all sorts of promises to Samsung to entice them to come here.
Not one iota either way. The iHaters say Apple has taken a PR hit by even daring to sue Samsung. Today's stock price would seem to argue against that. But then the iHaters live in some alternate universe where everything Apple does makes them look bad in the eyes of the public at large and will doom the company RSN.
I disagree. The share price could move, possibly even a few percentage points.
If Apple wins, the judgment will mean that the competitors will have to stop copying Apple and Apple's distinct look and feel will become an even stronger competitive edge. While a few hundred million dollars (or even a billion or two) would have only a modest effect on share price (roughly, a $1 B judgment would theoretically increase share price by around 0.15% if it was actually paid).
If Apple loses, then the competition would feel that they have free rein to make even closer copies of Apple products without repercussions.
In either case, any move in the share price would be tempered by the expectation that any judgment from Koh's court will be appealed, but I would not be surprised to see the share price swing, particularly if the decision is decisive.
I suppose you all saw the Dog and Pony show yesterday in San Jose where Governor Moonbeam and the SJ Mayor were falling over themselves to get down and kiss the feet of the head of Samsung when he came to town to promise to open a new office. It was a truly disgusting show. Of course the size of the facility and the number of hires is yet to be disclosed, but the local politicos are all in a lather about how wonderful this will be and are making all sorts of promises to Samsung to entice them to come here.
Wonderful coincidence of timing, eh?
I don't think it's likely to affect the decision. The more frustrating thing for me is that it's yet another example of how people are so ready to fall for hype and empty promises from organizations that have a lot of money. If I were to approach the mayor of San Jose and say I was planning to open a new office, he would want the details - including how much I was going to spend and how many people I planned to hire - before he would even talk to me. If Samsung says they're going to open a new office, they don't need any details. They are simply praised to high heavens from the start.
The same could theoretically apply to Apple, but Apple generally doesn't play that game. Because of secrecy concerns, they tend not to announce anything until all their ducks are in a row and then they announce it all at once.
Emphasis on the bolded part.
I don't expect Samsung to write Apple a check for $2.5 B or anything even close to that if the two sides settle.
Rather, Apple is going to want an ironclad agreement from Samsung that they will immediately stop using Apple's IP. That will be combined with a payment that is large enough to not be considered a token payment. While it is unlikely that Samsung will agree to admit guilt in a negotiated settlement, a payment in excess of $100 M would be as good as an admission of guilt in the eyes of most observers.
I expect that a negotiated settlement would involve:
1. Cash payment from Samsung to Apple of $100-500 M.
2. Samsung immediately agrees to stop using questioned Apple technologies and designs in future phones and no longer produce any of the existing designs (they may be allowed to sell those which are already in inventory). This will include changing the design of their charger and cable and their packaging (some of which has already been done).
3. Apple MIGHT agree to grant Samsung a license for some (but not all) of the disputed utility patents, and probably none of the design patents.
4. Samsung drops any claims for royalties on items that have already paid royalties (Qualcomm chips, for example).
5. For any items where royalties have not yet been paid, Apple agrees to pay Samsung the lowest royalty rate of anyone before deducting cross-licensing payments (due to Apple's high volume, this is reasonable).
6. A hefty discount on future purchases of Samsung goods by Apple.
If the two sides are able to come to an agreement, I really believe that it would have to be very similar to that.
Some of those are reasonable while others overreach a bit, but a guy needs something to dream about, and stranger things have happened so I wouldn't be surprised if it were very close to those. Another poster called No. 6 as irrelevant but I'd say it's probably the most improbable of the group.
Furthermore, note that it's not unprecedented. The amounts I'm talking about for a negotiated settlement are not at all out of line. In the Microsoft/Apple case well over a decade ago, Microsoft agreed to buy $150 M in Apple stock, and the two parties reached cross licensing agreements. And Apple's case against Microsoft didn't appear to be anywhere near as strong as their case against Samsung.
The Apple/ Microsoft case was decided in 1994. with the judge concluding that the operation of a GUI was pretty much obvious and did not allow for Apple's claims of original design, and that the actual design of individual icons was essentially generic and not a product of Apple's R & D.
The purchase by Microsoft of $150M in Apple stock was in 1998 when Microsoft needed backup in its travails versus the US DoJ.
The Apple/ Microsoft case was decided in 1994. with the judge concluding that the operation of a GUI was pretty much obvious and did not allow for Apple's claims of original design, and that the actual design of individual icons was essentially generic and not a product of Apple's R & D.
The purchase by Microsoft of $150M in Apple stock was in 1998 when Microsoft needed backup in its travails versus the US DoJ.
Cheers
That's not what happened. In the Microsoft case, the judge decided that the existing license agreement covered Microsoft's use of Apple's IP.
Just when you think you've got the trial basics down, the court throws in a monkey-wrench.
While Judge Grewel turned down Samsung's request that Apple also be noted to the jury as having destroyed evidence, Judge Koh sees things differently.
She agreed with Samsung.
The jury will be told:
"Samsung Electronics Company has failed to preserve evidence for Apple's use in this litigation after Samsung Electronics Company's duty to preserve arose. Whether this fact is important to you in reaching a verdict in this case is for you to decide."
So what will the jury be told about Apple?
"Apple has failed to preserve evidence for Samsung's use in this litigation after Apple's duty to preserve arose. Whether this fact is important to you in reaching a verdict in this case is for you to decide."
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger
If Apple wins, how would its stock be affected? If it loses?
Not one iota either way. The iHaters say Apple has taken a PR hit by even daring to sue Samsung. Today's stock price would seem to argue against that. But then the iHaters live in some alternate universe where everything Apple does makes them look bad in the eyes of the public at large and will doom the company RSN.
I suppose you all saw the Dog and Pony show yesterday in San Jose where Governor Moonbeam and the SJ Mayor were falling over themselves to get down and kiss the feet of the head of Samsung when he came to town to promise to open a new office. It was a truly disgusting show. Of course the size of the facility and the number of hires is yet to be disclosed, but the local politicos are all in a lather about how wonderful this will be and are making all sorts of promises to Samsung to entice them to come here.
Wonderful coincidence of timing, eh?
I disagree. The share price could move, possibly even a few percentage points.
If Apple wins, the judgment will mean that the competitors will have to stop copying Apple and Apple's distinct look and feel will become an even stronger competitive edge. While a few hundred million dollars (or even a billion or two) would have only a modest effect on share price (roughly, a $1 B judgment would theoretically increase share price by around 0.15% if it was actually paid).
If Apple loses, then the competition would feel that they have free rein to make even closer copies of Apple products without repercussions.
In either case, any move in the share price would be tempered by the expectation that any judgment from Koh's court will be appealed, but I would not be surprised to see the share price swing, particularly if the decision is decisive.
I don't think it's likely to affect the decision. The more frustrating thing for me is that it's yet another example of how people are so ready to fall for hype and empty promises from organizations that have a lot of money. If I were to approach the mayor of San Jose and say I was planning to open a new office, he would want the details - including how much I was going to spend and how many people I planned to hire - before he would even talk to me. If Samsung says they're going to open a new office, they don't need any details. They are simply praised to high heavens from the start.
The same could theoretically apply to Apple, but Apple generally doesn't play that game. Because of secrecy concerns, they tend not to announce anything until all their ducks are in a row and then they announce it all at once.
Some of those are reasonable while others overreach a bit, but a guy needs something to dream about, and stranger things have happened so I wouldn't be surprised if it were very close to those. Another poster called No. 6 as irrelevant but I'd say it's probably the most improbable of the group.
What do you know about that? lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Furthermore, note that it's not unprecedented. The amounts I'm talking about for a negotiated settlement are not at all out of line. In the Microsoft/Apple case well over a decade ago, Microsoft agreed to buy $150 M in Apple stock, and the two parties reached cross licensing agreements. And Apple's case against Microsoft didn't appear to be anywhere near as strong as their case against Samsung.
The Apple/ Microsoft case was decided in 1994. with the judge concluding that the operation of a GUI was pretty much obvious and did not allow for Apple's claims of original design, and that the actual design of individual icons was essentially generic and not a product of Apple's R & D.
The purchase by Microsoft of $150M in Apple stock was in 1998 when Microsoft needed backup in its travails versus the US DoJ.
Cheers
That's not what happened. In the Microsoft case, the judge decided that the existing license agreement covered Microsoft's use of Apple's IP.
Just when you think you've got the trial basics down, the court throws in a monkey-wrench.
While Judge Grewel turned down Samsung's request that Apple also be noted to the jury as having destroyed evidence, Judge Koh sees things differently.
She agreed with Samsung.
The jury will be told:
So what will the jury be told about Apple?