Apple v. Samsung damages breakdown revealed in jury verdict form

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 94
    flipkalflipkal Posts: 28member
    The way I see it, Apple claimed Samsung copied. Samsung counterclaimed. The jury awarded Apple 755 times MORE than Samsung. Who is the worse copier? Samsung, by far.

    Cased closed.

    (In actuality, I don't think Apple consciously copied anything, but Samsung's counterclaim had to be recognized with a token award.)
  • Reply 42 of 94
    disturbiadisturbia Posts: 563member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post



    What an ugly fucking form. Using a row of parenthesis as a divider? Really? Was this done using a typewriter from the 1950s?



    I feel bad for Jurors having to fill out this confusing piece of shit form.

    Hey, the head of jury was an ex-ibm executive! What did you expect?!! ROFLAMO

  • Reply 43 of 94
    island hermitisland hermit Posts: 6,217member

    Let's have a look at a few headlines:

     

    US Jury Says Samsung, Apple Both Infringed Patents

    - Yahoo News

     

    Apple Win Falls Short of $2 Billion Sought From Samsung

    - Bloomberg

     

    Court Issues Mixed Verdict in Apple-Samsung Trial

    - Al Jazeera America

     

    US Jury Orders Samsung To Pay Apple $120 Million

    - Reuters

     

    Google A Winner In Apple-Samsung Verdict

    - Re/code

     

    The Jury Is In: Samsung Infringes, But Damages To Apple Are A "Mere" $120M

    - ArsTechnica

     

    Apple-Samsung Jury Splits the Baby: The Experts Weigh In

    - Fortune

     

    Mixed Verdict In Apple-Samsung Patent Fight

    - New York Times

     

    Federal Jury Finds Samsung and Apple Both Guilty of Patent Infringement

    - New York Daily News

  • Reply 44 of 94
    spanadingspanading Posts: 74member
    pharmkid02 wrote: »
    Samsung was found guilty.

    If Samsung have been found guilty does this mean that the US can ban imports of the offending items. If so this maybe why Apple is now looking at the s5. Also I wonder if the unclear judgement form was. Of a way to gauge the response from both parties before passing a final judgement. At the moment the jurors could use judge Kou's request to clarify the verdict to hammer Samsung if they get cocky or whine. Also by the definition of Samsung's own council this is a win for apple that should see them dancing in the streets of Cupretino. So yep a own for Apple indeed
    :D
  • Reply 45 of 94
    spanadingspanading Posts: 74member
    Let's have a look at a few headlines:

    US Jury Says Samsung, Apple Both Infringed Patents
    - Yahoo News

    Apple Win Falls Short of $2 Billion Sought From Samsung
    - Bloomberg

    Court Issues Mixed Verdict in Apple-Samsung Trial
    - Al Jazeera America

    US Jury Orders Samsung To Pay Apple $120 Million
    - Reuters

    Google A Winner In Apple-Samsung Verdict
    - Re/code

    The Jury Is In: Samsung Infringes, But Damages To Apple Are A "Mere" $120M
    - ArsTechnica

    Apple-Samsung Jury Splits the Baby: The Experts Weigh In
    - Fortune

    Mixed Verdict In Apple-Samsung Patent Fight
    - New York Times

    Federal Jury Finds Samsung and Apple Both Guilty of Patent Infringement
    - New York Daily News

    Of those I would only rate Reuters and New York Times as reliable unbiased news providers that are internationally recognised. Oh what a supprise no pro Samsung gluoting :\
  • Reply 46 of 94
    patsupatsu Posts: 430member
    pfisher wrote: »
    Steve Jobs quotes come back to haunt Apple:

    It's more fun to be a pirate than to join the Navy.
    <ul style="margin-left:1.6em;margin-top:.3em;"><li style="margin-bottom:.1em;">At a retreat in September 1982, as quoted in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sculley" style="background-image:none;color:rgb(102,51,102);" target="_blank" title="w:John Sculley">John Sculley</a>
     and John A. Byrne, Odyssey: Pepsi to Apple – A Journey of Adventure, Ideas, and the Future (1987), p. 157</li>

    <li style="margin-bottom:.1em;">Variant: Why join the Navy . . . if you can be a pirate?</li>

    </ul>

    Compared to Samsung, Apple is the newer kid on the block in the cellphone business. Samsung also has more diverse businesses and broader distribution over the decades. Apple has to build these from scratch.

    It's just that the rookie decided to focus on top end of the market and has taken in a lot of profit. Samsung, the incumbent, spends tons of money on marcom and market development funds to defend itself. The other big players failed.

    Apple is mostly still focusing on its business network and management line up. They seem to set up a different business relationship with the telcos compared to traditional "buffet style" cellphone businesses.

    It looks like they are more or less done. We will probably see Apple talk more about its new self moving forward.
  • Reply 47 of 94
    stefstef Posts: 87member
    What if Apple knows what it's doing? Imagine that.

    What if it sees these as useless but necessary fights? What choice does it have? The moment it quits aggressively defending and acquiring IP, thousands of little IP insects will begin sucking blood bits out of it in court.

    What if massive legal costs are precisely what Apple uses to ward off death by mosquito bites? If so, the more maniacal Apple looks, the more like a bloody nutcase (think Cheney) willing to go thermonuclear on costs, the better. And what are the net legal costs, after taxes?

    Outside court, Apple clearly focuses on significant tech that it can own materially, not just on IP paper that's not worth a damn: touch ID, sapphire, A7, M7. Yesterday Apple bought a display tech company. Apple spent more on acquiring tech companies than Google last year. And a hellava lot more on acqs relevant to its core business.

    I don't see where Apple has in any way given up creative invention for legal reaction. When's the last time Apple put its head in the noose, relying on IP advantage alone?

    It did once. Let's not forget, as Daniel Eran Dilger says, this has all happened before. Apple lost big time relying on court battles in the nineties. Is it likely to rely on lawyers today? Really? I don't think so. Burned twice, shame on Apple.

    It knows better.
  • Reply 48 of 94
    patsupatsu Posts: 430member

    Moving forward, I suspect Apple will continue to sue other companies that imitate its design too closely. Like Luis Vuitton defending its look from imitators. Besides Samsung, there will be tons of me-toos from China. But it is of course not the only means for Apple to grow.



    They will continue to innovate in an integrated fashion, as opposed to the old, piece-meal feature-by-feature releases in the traditional cellphone businesses.

     

    If we look at Apple more closely, they seem to be rebuilding their infrastructure from the ground up for the past few years. More focus on environment-friendly technologies and energy, a broader business network based on integrated ecosystem, acquiring skillets to make a full computer by itself, reimagining how to build a computer (Mac Pro and factory innovation), recruiting savvy business leaders to cover Jobs' multiple roles in the past, redefining relationships with customers and partners with 7-to-1 stock split, etc.



    As a company, they have actually grown systematically, as opposed to haphazard acquisition and hire+fire in the traditional US cooperate space.

  • Reply 49 of 94
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    pfisher wrote: »
    Steve Jobs quotes come back to haunt Apple:

    It's more fun to be a pirate than to join the Navy.
    <ul style="margin-left:1.6em;margin-top:.3em;"><li style="margin-bottom:.1em;">At a retreat in September 1982, as quoted in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sculley" style="background-image:none;color:rgb(102,51,102);" target="_blank" title="w:John Sculley">John Sculley</a>
     and John A. Byrne, Odyssey: Pepsi to Apple – A Journey of Adventure, Ideas, and the Future (1987), p. 157</li>

    <li style="margin-bottom:.1em;">Variant: Why join the Navy . . . if you can be a pirate?</li>
    </ul>

    The subtleties in the Jobs quote obviously elude you. Jobs was talking about fighting against "the establishment," not literally being a pirate (thief). The monolithic culture of IBM and the tastelessness of Microsoft was what Jobs rebelled against. Chalk it up to youthful exuberance, it was not a justification for willful patent infringement, you cretin.
  • Reply 50 of 94
    zeromeuszeromeus Posts: 182member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

     

    The results of this trial are exactly what proponents of no software patents were looking for. Now they can go full speed ahead and force the bogus USPTO to get rid of all software patents. After all, software is just a bunch of words and how can you patent words? /s

     

    I relate Samsung's penalty to driving 120mph through a residential neighborhood and getting a $10 fine. This fine won't stop Samsung and it won't stop any other company from willfully using Apple's patented products. The only thing that would stop them would be an injunction and Judge Koh would never do that.

     

    What bother's me more than these results, however, is how Americans view Apple and Samsung. In many ways, I see Samsung being looked at as the better product producing company and Apple looking like the old "made in Japan," then "Made in China" products of a few decades ago. So many stores carry Samsung products while refusing to carry Apple products (either because they can't get good margins or Apple won't let them). What is the unknowing person supposed to think? Obviously that Samsung has better products because Costco, Best Buy, Walmart, Sam's Club, the local grocery store, and the corner 7-11 all carry their products so they must be the best ones on the market. Yes, marketing does convert a whole lot of people, including, in the case of this trial, the eight jurists who also obviously didn't find that much wrong with what Samsung did.




    Walmart, local grocery store, 7-11 carrying products from samsung only devalues the product, not labeling it as better product.  In fact, Costco had a fall-out with Apple, which is why they're no longer allowed to carry Apple products.  Sam's club is like samsung, they try really hard to copy Costco.  I've been a Costco member for 14 years and a Sam's club member for half a year and I can tell you that even though Costco is 10 miles away from where I live while Sam's club is only walking distance away, I still prefer to go to Costco for my QUALITY products needs.  Sam's club's products are inferior to Costco's product in every way.  Starting with the $1.50 hot dog... Any product that both stores carry, Costco's prices are better.  One might notice that Sam's club items "appear" to be less expensive until one reads the label and sees that Sam's club size is smaller compare to Costco's size.  For example, a bag of chip at Costco may be 8oz for $1.99 and Sam's club has the same bag of chips at 6oz for $1.79... As you can see, the size is 1/4 smaller but the price is only 1/10 less.  So for Costco, it's about 25 cent/oz whereas for Sam's club, it's actually 30 cent/oz.  Don't get tricked by their marketing schemes.

     

    I'm currently an executive Costco member... that's how great Costco is... As for Sam's club, I spent a total of $5 on one year membership from their promotion.  Let's just say that once my membership is over, I will not be renewing with Sam's.

  • Reply 51 of 94
    damn_its_hotdamn_its_hot Posts: 1,193member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post



    What an ugly fucking form. Using a row of parenthesis as a divider? Really? Was this done using a typewriter from the 1950s?



    I feel bad for Jurors having to fill out this confusing piece of shit form.

     

    The substitution of the single parenthesis is the lazy way of what was commonly done on the typewriter which was to type a open paren then backspace and type a closed paren - which was actually a substitution for § (opt-5) in the style / header of the case.

     

    I agree that is not very clean looking on the form but there is a whole lot more to complain about than that. Who about the content and the use of double negatives for one.

  • Reply 52 of 94
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,811member
    disturbia wrote: »
    Hey, the head of jury was an ex-ibm executive! What did you expect?!! ROFLAMO

    What's an IBM? And why did autocorrect change it to all caps? /s
  • Reply 53 of 94
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    rob53 wrote: »

    The worst part about these trials is that Judge Koh would only allow a few patents to be asserted at a time. Apple has plenty more and could have brought upwards of 20-50 (I'm guessing) while Samsung had very few.

    I agree with this part of your post. It is understandable why the judge only allows a few patents per trial, but it works to Samsung's advantage that no jury ever sees the comprehensive extent of Samsung's copying.
  • Reply 54 of 94
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,516member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Frood View Post

     

     

    Not in the US system.  It sounds good on paper but there are serious downsides to that system as well.  I sue you for whatever reason for $100,000.   You hire a lawyer for $10,000 to defend you.  I bring my team of the worlds top lawyers for $1,000,000.  My team of lawyers wins.  You owe me $100,000 in damages and $1,000,000 in legal fees.  Plus you still owe your lawyer $10,000.

     

    So the 'loser pays' system would need all kinds of even more jargon in it to prevent abuse.  We're lawsuit trigger happy enough in the US already.

     

    In this case it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing for Apple.  I believe Samsung's legal fees were higher.  Since Apple lost their portion of the case should they then be required to pick up Samsung's legal fees as well?


     

    In some countries, they have a system wherein only the litigant pays their opponent's fees if they lose.  This has the benefits of deterring patent trolls from bringing suit, but also prevents the concern you mentioned above.  The little defendant wouldn't have to pay your million dollar fees, so it wouldn't be worth it to bring such a suit.

  • Reply 55 of 94
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,353member

    Apple's lawyers, on the whole, come through as a rather unimpressive bunch. (I am including the saps who argued in front of Cote as well).

     

    They seem to lack the chutzpah of those representing Samsung.

  • Reply 56 of 94



    Yeah, I bought one of the original "SE" Macs... $3,000 in 1987.  Took 8 floppys to load Adobe Pagemaker and about 15 minutes to do a screen redraw. What a piece of junk.  The PC's, selling for half the price or less had a lot more power as I recall. No windows in the early days, but some performance. The SE was called the "Toaster" because it got hot... because the genius Steve Jobs did not want to put a fan in it for fear

    is would somehow diminish its style.

     

    Could not give it away 2 years later. Went to the Salvation Army.

    I got a printer thrown in for the $3,000.

  • Reply 57 of 94



    agreed, it was a piece of junk... and unfortunately I bought one... could not give it away a year later.

  • Reply 58 of 94
    atlappleatlapple Posts: 496member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post



    Apple should buy a controlling stake in Xiaomi and gut the low-end Android market, thus robbing Samsung of their marketshare. Disembowel the enemy before he has time to think.

    Apple should look into buying a good legal team first. Samsung put on a textbook defense, even getting a judgement against Apple. 

  • Reply 59 of 94
    512ke512ke Posts: 782member

    Let Samsung enjoy some rare good news amid its ongoing shrinking profits and plateaued revenue.

     

    http://pds.joins.com/jmnet/koreajoongangdaily/_data/photo/2014/01/08010541.jpg

     

    Here is how I read the jury's verdict.  20something million divided by 150K = Samsung is 800 times a bigger thief than Apple.

  • Reply 60 of 94
    applesauce007applesauce007 Posts: 1,686member

    Now that the trial is over, Samsung must stop violating the patents.

    That will lead to lost of sales because their products will be inferior.

    That alone will be worth it.

Sign In or Register to comment.