CloudTalkin

wonkothesane said:

So, if the overall market grew 29%, and Apple increased their absolute sales by 41% then this would mean that Apple grew 12% above market average. 

OTOH, a 2% loss in absolute sales for Samsung should then lead to a significant loss in market share - which the chart does not appear to depict. 

So am I reading something wrongly here?

I think the author may have misinterpreted the info in the source article.  The source article says this:

Samsung dropped to second position and declined 2 percentage points YoY in the premium segment. The Galaxy S10 Plus was the top-selling flagship for Samsung in 2019, despite the availability of cheaper models like Galaxy S10e. As a result, Samsung’s ultra-premium segment shipments grew by 24% YoY and the segment’s contribution to Samsung’s overall premium shipments reached 79% in 2019, compared to 62% in 2018.

The AI author's claim of a significant sales decline seems to stem from a misreading of the the bolded sentence in the quote.  Looking at the quote in total, context says the decline is in market share, not sales.  The last sentence in the quote backs my opinion.  So does the chart.  It's not a sales chart, it's a market share chart.  

Samsung lost 2% marketshare, not because their sales declined.  They lost 2% market share because the other two competitors gained more than they did over the period.

Here's a very simple example of how to gain in sales but decline in market share.
Samsung sells 100 phones.  One Plus sells 100 phones.  Apple sells 100 phones.  Their respective market shares are ~33.3%

Samsung increases their sales by 24%, One Plus by 28%, and Apple by 41%.  Samsung would have increased sales while declining in market share, just like the source article says.  Hopefully that clears some of the confusion you have with the article.

DAalseth said:

CloudTalkin said:

DAalseth said:

sflocal said:

I just don't get this.  If Apple buys chips made by Broadcom, and those chips are found to be in violation, why should Apple even be involved? Did this company go after other phone manufacturers using their chips?  

Unless Broadcom made the chips to Apple's designs and specifications. Then if the chips infringe, both would be liable.

Whether the chips were made to Apple's designs and specs is immaterial.  It's not a determining factor in whether or not Apple can be sued for infringement.

Sure it does. If Apple’s designs infringed they are liable. If I tell you to rob a bank and you do it, we’re both implicated in bank robbery. 

No it doesn't.  Ample evidence has been provided throughout this thread demonstrating that the only requirement for the inclusion of Apple is use of the offending technology.  Specificity to Apple's requirements is not a condition of CIT's ability to sue Apple.  If you own a patent and I make a product that infringes on that patent.  You can sue me, my customer who uses my product in their consumer widget, and end users who buy the widget.  Anyone along the chain of distribution can be sued.  There is no requirement like the one you introduced.  It is simply an incorrect assumption.  To be fair, it's a logical assumption but incorrect nonetheless.   

DAalseth said:

sflocal said:

I just don't get this.  If Apple buys chips made by Broadcom, and those chips are found to be in violation, why should Apple even be involved? Did this company go after other phone manufacturers using their chips?  

Unless Broadcom made the chips to Apple's designs and specifications. Then if the chips infringe, both would be liable.

Whether the chips were made to Apple's designs and specs is immaterial.  It's not a determining factor in whether or not Apple can be sued for infringement.

jdgarvin50 said:

If Apple loses on appeal, that would set a precedent where all manufacturers are then responsible for vetting their vendors’ compliance with patents related to THEIR products? Instead of fixing the patent system, let’s break it some more! CalTech’s response to the judgement makes it sound like they know it would put another break in the system, but don’t really care, since it would line their pockets in a big way. How long until we, as downstream customers, are liable for infringement because we failed to audit patent compliance of every seller and manufacturer of every component involved the products of any kind we purchase from ANY company? Think about your car, or all the products used to make the home you live in, like ranges, refrigerators, HVAC systems. Sounds like a nightmare to me.

This wouldn't set any precedent.  Patent holders have had the ability to sue up and down the chain of distribution for as long as I can remember.  This is nothing new.  That chain unfortunately includes end users.  End users have already been sued by patent holders.  Again, this is nothing new.  I mentioned earlier where Datatern sued end users.  Innovatio IP Ventures sued end users. MPHJ tried massive extortion against end users.

klock379 said:

CloudTalkin said:

A patent holder can sue anyone along the chain of alleged infringement.  In this particular instance, CIT can sue Broadcom who made the chips, Apple who uses the chips, and even end users who use the products that use the chips.  Obviously, there's no strategic advantage to suing end users or shipping companies that move the chips or any of the other ancillary touch points.  

I know you're probably saying to yourself, "but that's not fair".  You'd be right, but it would be pointless to make that observation.  The laws as currently constructed say that it's legal.  Here's a classic example of legal but even more unfair:  Microsoft v Datatern.  End users sued.

Typically speaking, won’t the indemnification clause in the contract between parties be protecting the downstream party from being sued or suffering any penalties for the wrongdoing of the upstream party?

Let's make this conversation hypothetical.  Then we can introduce an indemnity clause without questioning whether one exists (there are typically 6 types of indemnity clauses in commercial contracts) between Broadcom and Apple.  That settled, the answer is no.  An indemnity clause has no bearing on this issue.  That hypothetical contract clause would be between Broadcom and Apple.  It would have nothing to do with CalTech and who they choose to sue.

Indemnity clauses transfer risk from one party to another in a contract.  They don't provide protections against being sued by a 3rd party.