After partial win, Apple comments on second Samsung trial as award grows

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 104
    john f.john f. Posts: 111member
    The thing with these trials is that Apple has to constantly limit the scope to just a handful of patents. Apple has hundreds of iPhone patents, both software, hardware and combination. Apple chooses these very simple patents -- but which are very recognizable to people -- in trials, and yet they come out victorious.

    I believe Apple has many more stronger patents, a combination of both software and hardware. A handful of patents is already worth $100 million. Then the dozens of more Apple has are worth billions. That's what I don't hear in the media. It's always, these patents are not worth much. Yeah, but if you do the math, the patents not brought into trial are worth how much?

    In the end, though, Apple is simply forced to license their patents, even if they don't want to. In effect, Apple constantly creates what is to become almost standard essential patents.
  • Reply 42 of 104
    spanadingspanading Posts: 74member
    Ok several points

    PATENTS LAST 21 years so I really doubt any patent apple has on the iPhone or iOS is about to expire
    Samsung's skin specifically set out to copy apples UI. If that is copyright protected as a design or as source code then that protection will last 50 years after the death of the owner of the copyright.
    If Google gave used source code that hold a significant chuck of code similar to Apple's then I would expect the same ruling on that as if you were to copy out of a copyrighted book and call it you own work. Even photocopying a book is strictly controlled by law to a percentage in single figures
    It appears to me that people have forgotten about the basics of the IP laws we have. I'm not a solicitor but I do remember the basic IP stuff i was taught at Uni. A design patent if memory serves correctly is somewhere between a normal patent and copyright and does cover both the look and feel of a device

    If Samsung have been shown to have wilfully infringed any patents apple Developed themselves (rather than purchased like Samsung) then the damages should be putative enough to make them think twice before doing anything like this again. what apple has made is irrelevant if the US legal system was for filling its purpose of stopping IP infringement the the penalty should fit the crime. WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT MEANS SAMSUNG KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING AND SET OUT TO DO IT ANYWAY. This judgement does very little to deter them from doing it to Apple or anyone else for that matter. Hence after this I would be very worried if I were Microsoft or any other tech company that may come up with a UI or device the market finds it likes as Samsung will now just think it can WILLFULLY copy that too. it's easy to change a whole UI if you don't have to design it in the first place and let others go through the hard work of finding out what works and what doesn't.

    So let me be clear. THIS IS NOT A WIN FOR APPLE IT IS A LOSS FOR THE ENTIRE COMPUTER INDUSTRY AS SERIAL IP INFRINGERSVCAN NOW USE THIS AS A BENCHMARK CASE, AND WILL.
  • Reply 43 of 104
    spanadingspanading Posts: 74member
    spanading wrote: »
    Ok several points

    PATENTS LAST 21 years so I really doubt any patent apple has on the iPhone or iOS is about to expire
    Samsung's skin specifically set out to copy apples UI. If that is copyright protected as a design or as source code then that protection will last 50 years after the death of the owner of the copyright.
    If Google gave used source code that hold a significant chuck of code similar to Apple's then I would expect the same ruling on that as if you were to copy out of a copyrighted book and call it you own work. Even photocopying a book is strictly controlled by law to a percentage in single figures
    It appears to me that people have forgotten about the basics of the IP laws we have. I'm not a solicitor but I do remember the basic IP stuff i was taught at Uni. A design patent if memory serves correctly is somewhere between a normal patent and copyright and does cover both the look and feel of a device

    If Samsung have been shown to have wilfully infringed any patents apple Developed themselves (rather than purchased like Samsung) then the damages should be putative enough to make them think twice before doing anything like this again. what apple has made is irrelevant if the US legal system was for filling its purpose of stopping IP infringement the the penalty should fit the crime. WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT MEANS SAMSUNG KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING AND SET OUT TO DO IT ANYWAY. This judgement does very little to deter them from doing it to Apple or anyone else for that matter. Hence after this I would be very worried if I were Microsoft or any other tech company that may come up with a UI or device the market finds it likes as Samsung will now just think it can WILLFULLY copy that too. it's easy to change a whole UI if you don't have to design it in the first place and let others go through the hard work of finding out what works and what doesn't.

    So let me be clear. THIS IS NOT A WIN FOR APPLE IT IS A LOSS FOR THE ENTIRE COMPUTER INDUSTRY AS SERIAL IP INFRINGERSVCAN NOW USE THIS AS A BENCHMARK CASE, AND WILL.

    Sorry about the numerous typos. But you can see my point
  • Reply 44 of 104
    bondm16bondm16 Posts: 141member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post





    I'm glad android is there for the poor folks that can't afford an iPhone. 

    Once again let me remind folks that someone not owning an iPhone isnt always about cost. I was an iphone user for 4 years before making the switch. I could upgrade to an iPhone without any issues with cost right now. People choose Android over iPhone for far more reasons than simply how much it costs. Please don't brand Android users a poor people.

  • Reply 45 of 104
    thanks to apple, their cunning design, software and hardware development we now have so many different android, google and Samsung products to choose from!! all I can say is if it wasn't for apple, iphone and ipad I'd still have my trusty Nokia brick! (didn't like Samsung then either)

    I often wonder why Samsung never really copied Nokia given how groundbreaking their products were? I really miss brick-like mobile phones with their clunky clicky buttons!!

    oh so just imagine the mobile landscape now if apple had "stuck" to just macs?
  • Reply 46 of 104

    but android is touted as the low-cost version of touch smartphones. They try noy to offend the poor people that way. And it IS for the poor people.

  • Reply 47 of 104
    christopher126christopher126 Posts: 4,366member
    Google has only lost money on Android. Why would Apple go after Google for damages? 

    Samsung made billions, and Apple wanted to besmirch its "next big thing" hubris. 

    Now Apple has won two landmark cases, and has a portfolio of patents it can use to leverage licensing agreements. 

    It's not like Apple needs revenue from anyone over legal action. It just earned +$10B in quarterly profits.

    Well said, bro.
  • Reply 48 of 104
    christopher126christopher126 Posts: 4,366member
    spanading wrote: »
    Ok several points

    PATENTS LAST 21 years so I really doubt any patent apple has on the iPhone or iOS is about to expire
    Samsung's skin specifically set out to copy apples UI. If that is copyright protected as a design or as source code then that protection will last 50 years after the death of the owner of the copyright.
    If Google gave used source code that hold a significant chuck of code similar to Apple's then I would expect the same ruling on that as if you were to copy out of a copyrighted book and call it you own work. Even photocopying a book is strictly controlled by law to a percentage in single figures
    It appears to me that people have forgotten about the basics of the IP laws we have. I'm not a solicitor but I do remember the basic IP stuff i was taught at Uni. A design patent if memory serves correctly is somewhere between a normal patent and copyright and does cover both the look and feel of a device

    If Samsung have been shown to have wilfully infringed any patents apple Developed themselves (rather than purchased like Samsung) then the damages should be putative enough to make them think twice before doing anything like this again. what apple has made is irrelevant if the US legal system was for filling its purpose of stopping IP infringement the the penalty should fit the crime. WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT MEANS SAMSUNG KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING AND SET OUT TO DO IT ANYWAY. This judgement does very little to deter them from doing it to Apple or anyone else for that matter. Hence after this I would be very worried if I were Microsoft or any other tech company that may come up with a UI or device the market finds it likes as Samsung will now just think it can WILLFULLY copy that too. it's easy to change a whole UI if you don't have to design it in the first place and let others go through the hard work of finding out what works and what doesn't.

    So let me be clear. THIS IS NOT A WIN FOR APPLE IT IS A LOSS FOR THE ENTIRE COMPUTER INDUSTRY AS SERIAL IP INFRINGERSVCAN NOW USE THIS AS A BENCHMARK CASE, AND WILL.
    You make good points and I don't mean to dismiss your comments.

    Asian companies have been stealing IP and producing subpar products for decades and I'm glad Apple has taken them to task. This may be naive on my part, but I will never buy a Samsung product. Unless it's in an iPhone, I guess! :)
  • Reply 49 of 104
    Willful infringement should be dealt with harshly. Judge Koh seems to look on these trials as if they're just licensing negotiations.
  • Reply 50 of 104
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,422member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post

     

    Damages is calculated on how a measure of how much Apple has lost. The defendant's profit or loss is irrelevant.


     

    That is incorrect.

  • Reply 51 of 104
    bondm16bondm16 Posts: 141member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ApplePieGuy View Post

     

    but android is touted as the low-cost version of touch smartphones. They try noy to offend the poor people that way. And it IS for the poor people.


    OK how about those who can afford the iPhone but choose Android because they prefer it. I wouldn't brand them as stupid simply because they made a different choice than yourself. 

  • Reply 52 of 104
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,422member
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by Bryan Tianao View Post

     

    Further to ...the whole "Google losing money on Android" line.. it doesn't take much to see Google's strategy; give out Android for free, gain significant market share whilst revenue is supported by other streams then finally refine the product to increase ad revenue without sacrificing useability. Google's strategy is working to a tee.  


     

    Android's "marketshare" is artificially inflated by a) cheap, low margin 'toys' that don't qualify as true smartphones or tablets, and b) a user demographic that is less engaged with their devices and less inclined to spend money on apps and online shopping. Combined, this paints a portrait of a user base that is less attractive to advertisers and therefore less likely to yield increased ad revenue.

     

    Google is well aware of this, leading to an introduction of their own higher-end devices which they sold at a loss in an effort to gain marketshare from Apple's customer base. So far this has not been very successful.

     

    Quote:



    Originally Posted by Bryan Tianao View Post

     

    Further more, the ad revenue from iOS is again mostly from web surfing - lot of these ad's pay Google, not Apple.


     

    What do you expect will happen to that ad revenue when Apple decides to replace Google as Safari's default search engine?

  • Reply 53 of 104
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Bondm16 View Post

     

    Once again let me remind folks that someone not owning an iPhone isnt always about cost. I was an iphone user for 4 years before making the switch. I could upgrade to an iPhone without any issues with cost right now. People choose Android over iPhone for far more reasons than simply how much it costs. Please don't brand Android users a poor people.


    Poor people as in poor misled people who settle for old fashioned tech that isn't even 64 bit.

     

    Poor, poor people.

  • Reply 54 of 104
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,469member
    Damages is calculated on how a measure of how much Apple has lost. The defendant's profit or loss is irrelevant.

    freediverx wrote: »
    That is incorrect.

    A quick primer on how infringement damages are calculated and what the basis is.
    http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=140d86d1-9b54-4789-9562-ef18d15d0cb4
  • Reply 55 of 104
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,469member

    Next issue. Apple may get triple damages on this trial's award. That's still to be decided. .

    I think you might be mis-reading (or not reading) the jury's Willfulness finding. If I'm correct it did not apply to all the patents found to infringe nor the resultant damages attributed to each. It only applied to one patent, the '172.. IMHO it will be problematic for Judge Koh to order additional damages for that particular one.
  • Reply 56 of 104
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,422member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Bondm16 View Post

     

    OK how about those who can afford the iPhone but choose Android because they prefer it. 


     

    As Apple only sells high end products, that statement only applies to that segment of the market. If you split the smartphone and tablet markets to separate quality devices from the cheap toys, you see a very different marketshare distribution between iOS and Android and between Apple and Samsung. 

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Bondm16 View Post

     

    I wouldn't brand them as stupid simply because they made a different choice than yourself. 


     

    Where did ApplePieGuy brand anyone as stupid?

     

    If you can't afford an iPhone, Android offers many viable, lower priced alternatives. Personally, I think the subsidized purchase price of a smartphone is insignificant compared to the cost of the wireless service over the length of a contract. In other words, I don't think it makes sense to settle for a lower quality device to save $50 or $100, when you're signing up for a contract that's going to cost you upwards of $2400. At best, that might yield a 4% savings in the long run. In any case, I see most of these devices going to customers who would have previously purchased feature-phones, rather than those who previously bought iPhones. 

     

    Income level aside, Android seems to appeal to smartphone buyers who share one or more of the following attributes: 

     

    a) hate Apple for whatever reason

    b) want a larger size screen than Apple offers (perhaps because they want a single device to use as both phone and tablet)

    c) value a perceived freedom of choice over a carefully curated, seamless and secure ecosystem

    d) are impressed by advertised "features and specs" over considerations like real world performance and utility

    e) rely on the advice and recommendations of wireless carrier salespeople who are incentivized to push Android devices

  • Reply 57 of 104
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by Adrayven View Post

    isnt that how Apple got to nearly a billion the first time?

     

    Nope, that was normal damages.

     

    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

    as if it adds any weight to their pathetic arguments.

     

    Yes, but see my signature.

  • Reply 58 of 104
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,469member
    Well, in the interest of being complete, Apple began this case with, if I recall correctly, 14 patents it intended to litigate. But the court required both sides to reduce the number of patents for this trial in order to streamline the trial and not unduly burden the jurors with a longer trial. So Apple will be back with the other nine patents, plus others that it held back when deciding on the 14 it intended for this trial.

    Apple would logically have used what they believe to be the 5 strongest and most effective patent claims of those 14 for this trial. It would make no sense to do otherwise. The other 9 would all have been of lesser value in their view, wouldn't you think? IMO it's not likely Apple would have expected to get more in damages and market impact using those leftover 9 for their next effort if there is one.

    This case could potentially bring about a cross-licensing settlement between the two, maybe a no-cloning type extending even to Tizen, depending on a couple of yet to be decided issues.
  • Reply 59 of 104
    kellya74ukellya74u Posts: 171member
    I have friends who love their Samsung phones. When I ask what they like about it, the point out a whole host of features that, based on info from these trials, are mostly Apple invented, stolen technology features of the iPhone. Then they tell me they don't like the iPhone, often because they got a 'deal' on their more affordable phone. I usually try to remain classy & not make them feel badly or defensive about their choice. To me, making these other phones is just like the companies who copy/steal Native American art, jewelry & sculpture designs, make them with inferior materials & sell them for a tenth of the price. Buyers are thrilled with their 'deal,' & the Native American is castigated because his prices are 'outrageously high,' & doesn't need to feed his family if he's going to charge so much.
  • Reply 60 of 104
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,422member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post



    A quick primer on how infringement damages are calculated and what the basis is.

    http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=140d86d1-9b54-4789-9562-ef18d15d0cb4

     

    My comment was directed at this sentence: "The defendant's profit or loss is irrelevant.

     

    Samsung's profits from sales of infringing products could be used in calculating the amount of profit Apple would have made absent the infringing conduct. While there are many factors that may influence that calculation, the defendant's profit is most certainly not irrelevant.

     

    5/20 Corrected typo

Sign In or Register to comment.