If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(C|Net)   Apple: We lost billions in profits due to Samsung patent infringement. Judge: OK, well then you are ordered to disclose details of sales, earnings, and profit margins on iPhones so we can just verify that assertion. Apple: oops   (news.cnet.com) divider line 224
    More: Amusing, Samsung, Judge Koh, iPhones, patent infringements, profit margins, u.s. patent, account of profits  
•       •       •

22873 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Oct 2012 at 12:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



224 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-18 12:08:19 PM
fark Apple.
 
2012-10-18 12:08:24 PM
Another iThread where iFans whine about the unfairness towards Apple.
 
2012-10-18 12:08:59 PM
static.funnyshirts.org
 
2012-10-18 12:09:55 PM
I have a feeling that Apple's own greed is going to come bite them in the arse.

And it shall be epic.
 
2012-10-18 12:10:36 PM
If you think everything can be solved by lawyers, be prepared when those lawyers do something that opens you up to scrutiny.

Idiots.
 
2012-10-18 12:11:16 PM

AlgertMan: fark Apple.


This, x1000
 
2012-10-18 12:12:20 PM
Also:

www.aboyandhiscomputer.com
 
2012-10-18 12:12:37 PM
I STILL don't understand how Samsung lost, since Samsung has plenty of prior art. Can someone explain to me how you have a continuing product line that predates the the patent and an extremely vague patent, and STILL lose?
 
2012-10-18 12:12:42 PM
Nevermind
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-18 12:13:46 PM
I look forward to this happening to the music industry the next time they demand a brazillion dollars from some kid who downloaded a couple of tracks.
 
2012-10-18 12:15:52 PM
graphics8.nytimes.com 

Where I buy all the things that make me different.
 
2012-10-18 12:16:10 PM
I like Apple products a lot, but I am just so sick of Apple. I am ashamed to admit I own them. You know?
 
2012-10-18 12:16:22 PM

Mr Guy: I STILL don't understand how Samsung lost, since Samsung has plenty of prior art. Can someone explain to me how you have a continuing product line that predates the the patent and an extremely vague patent, and STILL lose?


Because the US Patent system and Patent Office are both complete messes, and most jurors on patent cases are not qualified to make decisions based on patent law.

The results of that case made it clear that the jury didn't have due diligence in the reward they worked out, as they filled it out in a matter of hours, and even gave damages on the patents they said were not infringed.
 
2012-10-18 12:16:27 PM

OgreMagi: I look forward to this happening to the music industry the next time they demand a brazillion dollars from some kid who downloaded a couple of tracks.


You're farking crazy.
 
2012-10-18 12:17:04 PM

StoPPeRmobile: [graphics8.nytimes.com image 395x260] 

Where I buy all the things that make me different.


Bought my iPhone 4 at Walmart. Double the evil.
 
2012-10-18 12:18:40 PM
yet more proof that this is about eliminating competition, not copyright infringement.
 
2012-10-18 12:19:02 PM

OgreMagi: I look forward to this happening to the music industry the next time they demand a brazillion dollars from some kid who downloaded a couple of tracks.


Considering the VP, among many other congressmen, are in the pockets of the RIAA, good luck with that.
 
2012-10-18 12:19:03 PM

Mr Guy: I STILL don't understand how Samsung lost, since Samsung has plenty of prior art. Can someone explain to me how you have a continuing product line that predates the the patent and an extremely vague patent, and STILL lose?


1- The patent and copyright system in this country is a joke. It needs to be overhauled, but no one in DC have the guts to do it.

2- The jurors massively farked up the whole thing. After appeals and such, the likelihood of Samsung paying Apple anything is small. They definitely won't be paying the massive farkton of cash the jury said they should.
 
2012-10-18 12:19:26 PM
I think everyone knows their slave-made phones net them huge amounts of money. But they're still willing to buy anything Apple sells so I'm not sure why Apple is so worried about it's public image at this point. I think they could use the blood of kittens to make each product and people will still buy their status symbols.
 
2012-10-18 12:20:28 PM

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: Mr Guy: I STILL don't understand how Samsung lost, since Samsung has plenty of prior art. Can someone explain to me how you have a continuing product line that predates the the patent and an extremely vague patent, and STILL lose?

Because the US Patent system and Patent Office are both complete messes, and most jurors on patent cases are not qualified to make decisions based on patent law.

The results of that case made it clear that the jury didn't have due diligence in the reward they worked out, as they filled it out in a matter of hours, and even gave damages on the patents they said were not infringed.


Not to mention the jury foreman apparently having an axe to grind against Samsung and not disclosing his involvement in a lawsuit with Seagate, a Samsung partner.
 
2012-10-18 12:21:32 PM

Mr Guy: I STILL don't understand how Samsung lost, since Samsung has plenty of prior art. Can someone explain to me how you have a continuing product line that predates the the patent and an extremely vague patent, and STILL lose?


jury trial.

samsung was too complicated for them, the jury found their lawyers and experts to be smug, because they described things like facts and details.

apple just said round corners... the jury could understand that and understand that apple's lawyers and experts didn't have to hide behind facts and explanations. they were just nicer and easier to understand.
 
2012-10-18 12:21:44 PM

Mr Guy: I STILL don't understand how Samsung lost, since Samsung has plenty of prior art. Can someone explain to me how you have a continuing product line that predates the the patent and an extremely vague patent, and STILL lose?


The patent was granted, the court enforced it. Given the enormous legal war-chests (and the huge bond Apple put up) of Samsung and Apple, the judge may have wanted to pass this affair up the ranks like the rotten shiatpile that it is. Everything is backwards in the courts, including shiat rolling uphill.
 
2012-10-18 12:21:57 PM

Mr Guy: I STILL don't understand how Samsung lost, since Samsung has plenty of prior art. Can someone explain to me how you have a continuing product line that predates the the patent and an extremely vague patent, and STILL lose?


By having a jury foreman with a completely whacked notion of what constitutes prior art, and ignoring any prior art that Samsung brought up as a result.
 
2012-10-18 12:23:05 PM
I dont see why Apple doesn't want to reveal the cost per unit. Anyone who thinks an iphone/ipod/airbook cost so much more for any reason other than because it's an Apple, is a complete moron.
 
2012-10-18 12:25:23 PM
I'd like to see this decision applied to the RIAA when they ask for $150,000 in losses per individual song pirated.
 
2012-10-18 12:26:41 PM

hitmanric: I dont see why Apple doesn't want to reveal the cost per unit. Anyone who thinks an iphone/ipod/airbook cost so much more for any reason other than because it's an Apple, is a complete moron.


The GS3 is thinner with a wider screen. You really think the iPhone 5 is so super advanced?
 
2012-10-18 12:27:44 PM

Mr Guy: I STILL don't understand how Samsung lost, since Samsung has plenty of prior art. Can someone explain to me how you have a continuing product line that predates the the patent and an extremely vague patent, and STILL lose?


Jury foreman presented himself to other jurors as an "expert" on patents while giving them very bad information. Also jury foreman failed to disclose his loss in court back in 93 to a subsidiary of samsung

That judgement against him lead to personal bankruptcy on his part. It's not 'If' but 'When' this gets sent back for a new trial or thrown out
 
2012-10-18 12:28:08 PM

hitmanric: I dont see why Apple doesn't want to reveal the cost per unit. Anyone who thinks an iphone/ipod/airbook cost so much more for any reason other than because it's an Apple, is a complete moron.


Perhaps it will show insanely low labor costs.
 
2012-10-18 12:28:41 PM

Bored Horde: Mr Guy: I STILL don't understand how Samsung lost, since Samsung has plenty of prior art. Can someone explain to me how you have a continuing product line that predates the the patent and an extremely vague patent, and STILL lose?

The patent was granted, the court enforced it. Given the enormous legal war-chests (and the huge bond Apple put up) of Samsung and Apple, the judge may have wanted to pass this affair up the ranks like the rotten shiatpile that it is. Everything is backwards in the courts, including shiat rolling uphill.


I guess what I don't understand is how this sort of thing isn't thrown out by a judge before jury selection. Why can't Samsung just drop a pile of PDAs and cell phones from the 1990s to 2000s on the table, and have the judge say, "Well, clearly this patent shouldn't have been granted".
 
2012-10-18 12:29:00 PM

OgreMagi: I look forward to this happening to the music industry the next time they demand a brazillion dollars from some kid who downloaded a couple of tracks.


The only way this would happen would be if the kid they went after happened to have more money than God and a want to waste it on lawyers.
 
2012-10-18 12:29:50 PM

Mr Guy: I STILL don't understand how Samsung lost, since Samsung has plenty of prior art. Can someone explain to me how you have a continuing product line that predates the the patent and an extremely vague patent, and STILL lose?


They neglected to enter it into evidence until it was too late, so it became inadmissible.
 
2012-10-18 12:29:51 PM

Cletus from Canuckistan: Mr Guy: I STILL don't understand how Samsung lost, since Samsung has plenty of prior art. Can someone explain to me how you have a continuing product line that predates the the patent and an extremely vague patent, and STILL lose?

By having a jury foreman with a completely whacked notion of what constitutes prior art, and ignoring any prior art that Samsung brought up as a result.


These articles disturb me more than most. At least we seem to have a new trend where people are being that stupid IN PUBLIC and on record.
 
2012-10-18 12:31:18 PM

hitmanric: I dont see why Apple doesn't want to reveal the cost per unit. Anyone who thinks an iphone/ipod/airbook cost so much more for any reason other than because it's an Apple, is a complete moron.


I think by acknowledging beyond a shadow of a doubt that they make $700+ per iPhone 5, all of their customers that have been mocked for spending WAY too much money just for a better looking product (in other words, everyone that wasn't an Apple fanboy) would realize that all of their mockery was not without merit and the house of cards would crumble like a house of cards should. ... then raise questions about every other product they make. Down goes Apple, back to 1992.
 
2012-10-18 12:31:35 PM

Mr Guy: Bored Horde: Mr Guy: I STILL don't understand how Samsung lost, since Samsung has plenty of prior art. Can someone explain to me how you have a continuing product line that predates the the patent and an extremely vague patent, and STILL lose?

The patent was granted, the court enforced it. Given the enormous legal war-chests (and the huge bond Apple put up) of Samsung and Apple, the judge may have wanted to pass this affair up the ranks like the rotten shiatpile that it is. Everything is backwards in the courts, including shiat rolling uphill.

I guess what I don't understand is how this sort of thing isn't thrown out by a judge before jury selection. Why can't Samsung just drop a pile of PDAs and cell phones from the 1990s to 2000s on the table, and have the judge say, "Well, clearly this patent shouldn't have been granted".


Courts are all about procedure. First, you have to sue over the right thing. Next, you have to put your ducks in a very specific row. Samsung kinda effed that up.
 
2012-10-18 12:32:38 PM

AlgertMan: fark Apple.


Because they are successful? Because they are aggressive about protecting their patents? Because they don't "play fair" and allow other companies to license their IP to make competing products? Because they make a device and bundle with it software and services that comprise a user experience, and instead of just selling the device and saying "have fun", they want to keep the overall experience of the device uniform for everyone and thus put up roadblocks that reasonably limit what you can do to that device and subsequently then continue to use the device with their services and software?

Apple makes its money off of its product, which is less about the hardware itself, and more about the experience. You buy their device, you get their services that go along with it, because they figure you're buying the device for all aspects of how it's used.

Want a droid? Buy a droid. Want to use the iphone any way you want? Jailbreak it. But guess what? Like jailbreaking the iPhone/iPod/iPad in order to change aspects of it that are considered core to the device's functionality (and thus wresting control over the device and how everything works and possibly degrading the device's stability or functionality from the mechanisms that allow Apple to somewhat guarantee this), if you root your Droid device and install an unsupported ROM onto it, or make changes to the system, support from the OEM/Carrier that sold the phone goes away.

Sure, it would be NICE if there was some disconnect between Hardware OEMs, Software OEMs, and app developers, such that you can mix and match from columns a, b, and c. But I doubt that it's ever going to happen because then you have one large fustercluck of how to make sure that everything works smoothly and completely with each other.

Windows took the approach that their OS could run on anything of hardware type X and anyone could write drivers/plugins/compatible software. So, you got a huge pile of hardware and software, some that worked well, some that was crap. And the consumer kinda had to dig through it and figure out what worked well and what didn't.

Apple took the approach back in the day that they didn't trust third parties to write quality software, so they kept as much control over the process as they could.

And now, people biatch about how they protect their IP and develop products.

Here's a hint: if you don't like it, then DON'T farkING BUY IT.
 
2012-10-18 12:32:58 PM

hitmanric: I dont see why Apple doesn't want to reveal the cost per unit. Anyone who thinks an iphone/ipod/airbook cost so much more for any reason other than because it's an Apple, is a complete moron.


Because they like putting out the image that they're operating on some razor thin margin, and that's why things have to cost what they do, and why they need slave workers in China to actually pull it all off. When the public finds out how much Apple is reaming them, they're going to be pissed off and not quite as willing to shell out as much money as they have been.
 
2012-10-18 12:35:16 PM

Mr Guy: I STILL don't understand how Samsung lost, since Samsung has plenty of prior art. Can someone explain to me how you have a continuing product line that predates the the patent and an extremely vague patent, and STILL lose?


Because, Money.
 
2012-10-18 12:35:48 PM

Mr Guy: I STILL don't understand how Samsung lost, since Samsung has plenty of prior art. Can someone explain to me how you have a continuing product line that predates the the patent and an extremely vague patent, and STILL lose?


Because a jury trial is roughly the same as walking into Wal-Mart and asking nine random people to sit down and decide the outcome of a really important and highly complex issue for you. No one would ever, in a million years, do that, but for some reason we think jury trials will somehow result in "justice."
 
2012-10-18 12:36:04 PM
Whoever loses, the lawyers win! And that's what we want, right?
 
2012-10-18 12:36:46 PM
I like my new iPhone 5. It fits much better in my hand than the old 4S.

Samsung's phones do look a lot like the iPhone, but who can blame them? Apple found the form factor that works great.

I don't really like how Apple uses the courts to compete against other companies, but they have a right to defend their IP.
 
2012-10-18 12:37:03 PM

Kit Fister: And now, people biatch about how they protect their IP and develop products.


People are biatching because of "rounded corners" being sold as some grand innovation in design. They're shutting down competition, not by making a vastly superior product, but by gaming the system. It's like TGIFridays suing Bennigans over their decorations.
 
2012-10-18 12:37:14 PM
If they reveal their profit margins you'll see they make over 100% profit on every iPhone.

It will be brutal. Especially with them being made by child labor.
 
2012-10-18 12:38:31 PM
Yawn. This is a typical playing-out of the events in patent infringement lawsuits. In all likelihood Apple will win the point and have all of this info redacted from published transcripts of the trial and related documents.
 
2012-10-18 12:40:00 PM
In other news, Apple has to publicly state that Samsung did not copy the iPad in the UK story
 
2012-10-18 12:41:05 PM

stonicus: Kit Fister: And now, people biatch about how they protect their IP and develop products.

People are biatching because of "rounded corners" being sold as some grand innovation in design. They're shutting down competition, not by making a vastly superior product, but by gaming the system. It's like TGIFridays suing Bennigans over their decorations.



i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-10-18 12:41:58 PM

Cheesehead_Dave: I'd like to see this decision applied to the RIAA when they ask for $150,000 in losses per individual song pirated.


Sadly they don't have to. Patent infringement takes into account things like loss and damages, Copyright infringement has Statutory Damages, no actual loss or damage needed.
 
2012-10-18 12:42:36 PM

cameroncrazy1984: hitmanric: I dont see why Apple doesn't want to reveal the cost per unit. Anyone who thinks an iphone/ipod/airbook cost so much more for any reason other than because it's an Apple, is a complete moron.

The GS3 is thinner with a wider screen. You really think the iPhone 5 is so super advanced?


I don't think you read his comment correctly...
 
2012-10-18 12:42:53 PM
No OBVIOUS tag? If you claim damages, you have to prove damages.
 
2012-10-18 12:43:34 PM

misthop: Sadly they don't have to. Patent infringement takes into account things like loss and damages, Copyright infringement has Statutory Damages, no actual loss or damage needed.


Wow.

What an incredibly large, steaming pile of bullsh*t.
 
2012-10-18 12:43:59 PM

Rev.K: misthop: Sadly they don't have to. Patent infringement takes into account things like loss and damages, Copyright infringement has Statutory Damages, no actual loss or damage needed.

Wow.

What an incredibly large, steaming pile of bullsh*t.


What I said or the law?
 
Displayed 50 of 224 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report