Jury verdicts in US are very often biased in favor of American companies. This happened in the SAP Oracle case as well. Eventually it gets appealed and the learned judge throws out the verdict.
ummm, even with 900m in damages, isn't this just a "cost of doing business" for Samsung? There profits from copied tech over these years probably dwarf this? If anyone has numbers, chime in.
Supposedly revenue was $3.5B, there was an article here I think on that. So I think paying out $900M is worth it.
80K sold, 800k Shipped. Any one can ship a crappy product. It's another thing to get people to buy it. We'll soon see this craptastic product in bargain bins. Maybe free with a Samsung Tablet?
Through the eyes of Samsung, that means sold as well. Doesn't matter if a retailer payed for those 800,000 or an end customer did.
Jury verdicts in US are very often biased in favor of American companies. This happened in the SAP Oracle case as well. Eventually it gets appealed and the learned judge throws out the verdict.
Yeah, nevermind the stealing. Poor Samsung, they only wanted to be liked, that's why they copied Apple's design.
I'm sure you are correct that a "learned judge" will throw out the verdict after TWO juries agreed with Apple. It's all a conspiracy against Samsung isn't it?
Maybe they should have had the trial in Seoul to be fair right?
Jury verdicts in US are very often biased in favor of American companies. This happened in the SAP Oracle case as well. Eventually it gets appealed and the learned judge throws out the verdict.
Some Seoul food should help wipe the tears away, Sammy.
How is $290M a "win" when this started out for damages at $1B and Samsung has likely made around $18 billion on their clone?
Next trial needs to go after bogus accounting where "Samsung is the #1 Smart phone -- Woot!" and then in trial "But we only made enough money to feed the cat."
Supposedly revenue was $3.5B, there was an article here I think on that. So I think paying out $900M is worth it.
Through the eyes of Samsung, that means sold as well. Doesn't matter if a retailer payed for those 800,000 or an end customer did.
We should probably quote Samsungs "trial accounting figures" whenever someone tries to say how they dominate the market. Are they GIVING these phones away, or are they just making up stuff based on where it suites their interests.
How is $290M a "win" when this started out for damages at $1B and Samsung has likely made around $18 billion on their clone?
Next trial needs to go after bogus accounting where "Samsung is the #1 Smart phone -- Woot!" and then in trial "But we only made enough money to feed the cat."
Damages are still almost $900 MM. This was for the miscalculated $400 MM part of the original amount.
If I could turn a near-$40bn/yr profit out of copying someone, I'd happily pay them $900mn every year! I don't know why Samsung would be complaining. They should just go away, pretending to have their tail between their legs, and think themselves lucky.
Oh no. According to samdung internal documents, Julie L. Davis has never ever bought any product from samdung because she believes they make shity products.
Therefore, samdung is going to ask for retrial again!!!
Retailers paying them is what I understood from [@]Gatorguy[/@], hopefully corrrectly. He will no doubt have a link if you'd like.
Returned items is a very good point, and as I understand it, a large portion were returned.
I'm not going back again to find it but the OP is welcome to look at International Accounting Standards, used by Samsung in reporting results. Essentially the IAS says sales are recognized in much the same way and using the same general rules as Apple does under US GAAP. Accordingly those requirements are usually met when the product/service is shipped.
As for returns I don't know that any of these guys, Apple included, generally report them.
Gotta feel sorry for Colleen Allen as the jury foreperson. I don't think she has a clue what's coming her way. Losers/trolls/shills everywhere are going to dig into her personal life for anything they can find to paint her as biased. Just like they did with Koh and Hogan before and with anyone else who rules in Apple's favor.
Efforts to harass, harm, denigrate or intimidate federal jurors - whether prospective, present or past - may be violations of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245. This who may be tempted to make such posts on this site - be forewarned.
Comments
I wonder if everyone got a good laugh when she said this.
Supposedly revenue was $3.5B, there was an article here I think on that. So I think paying out $900M is worth it.
Through the eyes of Samsung, that means sold as well. Doesn't matter if a retailer payed for those 800,000 or an end customer did.
[A spokeswoman for the company told Bloomberg that Samsung plans to "continue to innovate"]
I wonder if everyone got a good laugh when she said this.
LOL yes. You're supposed to start innovating before you can continue!
Yeah, nevermind the stealing. Poor Samsung, they only wanted to be liked, that's why they copied Apple's design.
I'm sure you are correct that a "learned judge" will throw out the verdict after TWO juries agreed with Apple. It's all a conspiracy against Samsung isn't it?
Maybe they should have had the trial in Seoul to be fair right?
Some Seoul food should help wipe the tears away, Sammy.
When was the last time you heard a group of people were captivated by and accountant. It is going be interesting to see if Samsung ever pays up...
I'm certain they will innovate a thousand more ways to be weasels.
Supposedly revenue was $3.5B, there was an article here I think on that. So I think paying out $900M is worth it.
Through the eyes of Samsung, that means sold as well. Doesn't matter if a retailer payed for those 800,000 or an end customer did.
Who says all the retailers paid for them? also look @ the return #, those go back to samsung to refurbish
How is $290M a "win" when this started out for damages at $1B and Samsung has likely made around $18 billion on their clone?
Next trial needs to go after bogus accounting where "Samsung is the #1 Smart phone -- Woot!" and then in trial "But we only made enough money to feed the cat."
Supposedly revenue was $3.5B, there was an article here I think on that. So I think paying out $900M is worth it.
Through the eyes of Samsung, that means sold as well. Doesn't matter if a retailer payed for those 800,000 or an end customer did.
We should probably quote Samsungs "trial accounting figures" whenever someone tries to say how they dominate the market. Are they GIVING these phones away, or are they just making up stuff based on where it suites their interests.
>> that was TRICK question by the way.
Retailers paying them is what I understood from [@]Gatorguy[/@], hopefully corrrectly. He will no doubt have a link if you'd like.
Returned items is a very good point, and as I understand it, a large portion were returned.
Damages are still almost $900 MM. This was for the miscalculated $400 MM part of the original amount.
"what if we make a manufacture a few of those A7 chips for you for free and call it even?"
"OK, how about 15 million of them?"
If I could turn a near-$40bn/yr profit out of copying someone, I'd happily pay them $900mn every year! I don't know why Samsung would be complaining. They should just go away, pretending to have their tail between their legs, and think themselves lucky.
Reprehensible a-holes.
Therefore, samdung is going to ask for retrial again!!!
I'm not going back again to find it but the OP is welcome to look at International Accounting Standards, used by Samsung in reporting results. Essentially the IAS says sales are recognized in much the same way and using the same general rules as Apple does under US GAAP. Accordingly those requirements are usually met when the product/service is shipped.
As for returns I don't know that any of these guys, Apple included, generally report them.
Gotta feel sorry for Colleen Allen as the jury foreperson. I don't think she has a clue what's coming her way. Losers/trolls/shills everywhere are going to dig into her personal life for anything they can find to paint her as biased. Just like they did with Koh and Hogan before and with anyone else who rules in Apple's favor.
Efforts to harass, harm, denigrate or intimidate federal jurors - whether prospective, present or past - may be violations of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245. This who may be tempted to make such posts on this site - be forewarned.