Apple says it's willing to settle, but inflammatory comments from Samsung suggest it isn't

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 89
    benjamin frostbenjamin frost Posts: 7,203member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RadarTheKat View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    While both Apple and Samsung were found guilty of patent infringement, the disparity was wide: While Apple paid only$158,000 in damages, Samsung was fined $119.6 million. Still, the retrial proved advantageous for Samsung, which saw its original damages reduced from some $1.05 billion.

     

    The $119.6 million is not a reduction of the $1.05 billion.  And this trial was not a retrial of the original trial.  In the original trial there was an adjustment to the initial $1.05 billion in damages against Samsung, down to $920 million.  So the first trial netted Apple $920 million in damages against Samsung and the second trial netted $119.6 million in damages against Samsung.  Samsung will appeal the verdicts in both trials so we'll hear more about both trials in the future.


    Four days later, and Apple Insider have still not corrected this article. No doubt, in years to come, journalists and Samsung will cite this article as evidence that their damages got whittled down from $1.05 billion to $119.6 million.

  • Reply 82 of 89
    benjamin frostbenjamin frost Posts: 7,203member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jinglesthula View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    "This is Apple's Vietnam, and people are sick of it," Quinn was quoted as saying.

     

     

    On Wikipedia this kind of comment would pick up a [citation needed] pretty quick.   Using wording like "people think" or "some people say" is sometimes referred to as weasel words since it suggests a statement is true because of an unspecified set of people holding that opinion, but does so without providing any substantiation of the claim that anyone does hold the opinion.  Nor does such a statement provide support for the implication that such people holding said opinion lends any credence to the held opinion.  It's about as mealy-mouthed as it gets.

     

    On the other hand I'm sure 'people' (meaning Samsung and its lawyers) are indeed sick of losing in court, so I guess that's true enough.


    Indeed; it's projection by Quinn.

  • Reply 83 of 89
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

     

    ...journalists and Samsung will site this article as evidence...


     

    Do you mean cite this site?

     

    Relying on spellcheck can be a bitch

  • Reply 84 of 89
    benjamin frostbenjamin frost Posts: 7,203member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by otterfish View Post



    Because it provides no benefit to Apple and has the greater potential of damaging their reputation.

    What benefit could it provide? $100 million, $1 billon? Chump change to Apple. Bragging rights? I'm sure hundreds of millions of teenagers with their Samsung phablets couldn't care less.



    What are the potential downsides? Apple ends up being seen by everybody in the industry as the bully in the mobile playground. And over what? A few design and software patents that don't come close to expressing what Apple products stand for because you can't patent quality and effort.



    As Tim Cook said at AllThingsD a couple of years ago "it's a distraction". They only had to go "thermonuclear war" because Steve was pissed at Eric Schmidt. Job done. Time to move on.




    It's the principle. Apple: "you steal out tech, we'll sue the shit out if you. Now **** off. "



     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post



    This Quinn fellow is despicable. I've read so many inflammatory, false, and off the wall comments from him, all laced with vicious hatred and mockery towards Apple- always straying away from the facts into FUD and smear category. What a piece of shit. But hey, when Samsung is literally shoving wads of cash up your ass then I guess its justifiable.




    Quinn's a lawyer and works for Sammy. That's double scummy for him.

    A lawyer working for Apple almost gets his scumminess wiped out. Almost.

  • Reply 85 of 89
    benjamin frostbenjamin frost Posts: 7,203member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AtlApple View Post

     

    They are now saying, Apple thank you for blinking first. 


     

    ... and that was another one of the things I mentioned. No matter what Apple does at this point, Samsung will spin it in its favor. Samsung doesn't care what we think, what Apple thinks... what anybody thinks.

     

    Pull out Apple. No matter which way you go it won't make a stick of difference in the end.

     

    Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


    Winning $1 billion is being damned? Well, I’ll be damned!

  • Reply 86 of 89
    benjamin frostbenjamin frost Posts: 7,203member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sennen View Post

     

     

    Many also wonder why you bother with your inane posts.


    You speak for the Many? Good for you!

     

    Are you saying that crybabies who constantly scream "I'm never buying a Samsung product again" every time AI posts some article that brings up the Samsung/Apple tribulations are not inane?


    I'm delighted to see that you're banned. Good riddance.

  • Reply 87 of 89
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

     

    ...journalists and Samsung will site this article as evidence...


     

    Do you mean cite this site?

     

    Relying on spellcheck can be a bitch


    Thanks - I always misspell cite.

  • Reply 88 of 89
    whcirwhcir Posts: 29member

    They used to be on top of this stuff. Not only are they not correcting this inaccuracy after people have commented on it, but I even emailed the author of the article the day I submitted that comment. And it's evident from the comments that some people think that's accurate information. I really expect more from AppleInsider. SMDH

  • Reply 89 of 89
    So it was back in March that this all happened yet talks were meant to be taking place recently.

    Weird, though that Foss Patents guy played a big hand in the whole story.
Sign In or Register to comment.