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 70
    More: Amusing, Samsung, Judge Koh, iPhones, patent infringements, profit margins, u.s. patent, account of profits  
•       •       •

22869 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»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-18 12:12:20 PM
8 votes:
Also:

www.aboyandhiscomputer.com
2012-10-18 12:21:32 PM
4 votes:

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 12:08:59 PM
4 votes:
static.funnyshirts.org
2012-10-18 01:54:10 PM
3 votes:
i.imgur.com
2012-10-18 02:04:15 PM
2 votes:

H31N0US: A better analogy would involve paying more money for an ed hardy tshirt.

But you can feel it in the fabric, it breathes non spectrum colors better than any other shirt you can buy.



OK. Then I"ll just fall back on the "I like being to change my own battery" argument. ;)
2012-10-18 01:16:05 PM
2 votes:

ZAZ: "Apple has not established that public availability of its product-specific unit sales, revenue, profit, profit margin, and cost data would actually provide its competitors with an advantage"

One of the things I hated about working for a megacorporation was the "everything is a secret" mentality. Spending less than .01% of your quarterly profit to buy technology from a small company is not a legitimate "die before you give up the secret" deal. But to corporate lawyers it is. Don't you dare tell a soul, not even your family, that you'll be in (city) next week. The perceived cost of disrupting employees' lives is zero, so they don't think twice about making stupid rules.


Furthermore, let's remember something: Apple is currently the most valuable company in the history of business. I honestly want to know just what irreparable harm was done to their company by Samsung producing the Galaxy series.
2012-10-18 12:41:05 PM
2 votes:

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 12:37:14 PM
2 votes:
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 12:17:04 PM
2 votes:

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 12:09:55 PM
2 votes:
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 09:07:54 PM
1 votes:

ScottRiqui: C_Canuk: Bullshiat

I had one of these in 2003
 
>

It had free plugins that did everything any smart phone does, including WiFi

the only thing an IPad has that this doesn't is Cellular connectivity as the miniaturization of cellular modems hadn't advanced far enough.

The IPad not only copies about 50 devices predicted by multiple movies and TV Shows, it also was the expected direction of hand held computers since the late 90s.

You made my point perfectly. Even limited by the same design considerations I mentioned (flat rectangular screen, flattish back, rounded corners), there have been plenty of visual/stylistic designs for tablets over the years that look only superficially similar (if at all) to how the iPad would later look. Your Viewsonic tablet is a good example. But look how closely so many of the post-iPad tablets resemble the iPad. Is it truly that the iPad was simply how tablets were destined to look, and Apple just happened to be first to release one with that appearance? Or is there some visual/stylistic copying going on?

Samsung vs. Apple icons:

[static6.businessinsider.com image 223x644]


icons

in order of the picture

#1 is the common colour and icon since dial pad, apple didn't make that, they copied it
#2 is the chat icon that is used as far back as icq
#3 is apple ripping of windows XP for crap sakes
#4 cogs have been the settings icon for decades almost as long as the long defunct diskette has been the save button
#5 the note icon is a ripof from LOTUS NOTES
#6 Contacts icon has been around for over a decade,
#7 I've seen music players with that icon in WIN 3.1

This is why people think apple fan boys are retarded. Those are all standard commonly used icon formats that have been around a very long time and are used to denote obvious common functions that are required for any device with computing functions. Then you double down on the derp by implying that apple was the first to come up with these industry standards.
2012-10-18 08:50:19 PM
1 votes:
2.bp.blogspot.com

Billions!
2012-10-18 03:55:10 PM
1 votes:

ScottRiqui: Bullseyed: ScottRiqui: "A utility patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention is not new. For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its requirements must have existed in a single device or method that predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single previous publication or patent that predates the claimed invention" (emphasis mine)

I don't think that a non-functional prop from 1968 that resembles a modern tablet computer satisfies the bolded portion.

I guess we're lucky then that the law isn't based on your opinion, because you're dead wrong.

I still don't see how I'm "dead wrong" after looking at the jury instructions and the U.S. Code. That's why I originally asked if there was precedent for something that had only appeared in a movie being successfully used as prior art.


At this point it is pretty obvious you're trolling.
2012-10-18 03:54:02 PM
1 votes:

GameSprocket: They had to establish massive data farms and network infrastructures already? What were they doing before iTunes that would have come anywhere close? That is like claiming that Google is all profit because Sergey Brin had it running on his Pentium desktop already.

Here ya go ...
An analyst has estimated that the Apple iTunes Store costs $1.3 billion a year to run


Well, an analyst said it, it must be true!

Apple charges to cover all of those things. For example, it costs money to get a developer kit to make apps. In my "you own a retail plaza" analogy, that is "rent".

And yes, to some extent Apple already needed to do those things for their own stuff. Like pushing out an iOS update to every device, for example. There is extra storage and bandwidth needed for all the other apps, songs, etc of course, but that is a marginal cost increase that as mentioned, is covered by the fees Apple charges to develop and list apps, songs, etc.
PJ-
2012-10-18 03:46:43 PM
1 votes:
Am I the only one here who thinks that Apple should up it's hardware game to remain at the top rather than try to sue everybody into the ground? I guess the days of competition is a good thing for the consumer are over.....
2012-10-18 03:41:31 PM
1 votes:

ScottRiqui: "A utility patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention is not new. For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its requirements must have existed in a single device or method that predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single previous publication or patent that predates the claimed invention" (emphasis mine)

I don't think that a non-functional prop from 1968 that resembles a modern tablet computer satisfies the bolded portion.


I guess we're lucky then that the law isn't based on your opinion, because you're dead wrong.
2012-10-18 03:32:22 PM
1 votes:

GameSprocket: Bullseyed: From what I understand Apple get the outlandish profits from iTunes and the App store. Apple's business strategy for the past 10 years has been building the most attractive walled garden around.

Well, those things are zero cost all profit. So yes and no.


Really? You think creating and operating the iTunes and App stores is zero cost?

I didn't realize you could get the servers, facilities, manpower, electricity, and publicity for free. That must be nice. Not to mention the fact that they got all that free legal representation to create the contracts with the music publishers.


They had to establish all of that stuff already anyway, and the cost relative to the profit is nearly zero.

It's like owning a retail plaza, but in addition to rent you also get 30% of everything all the stores sell.
2012-10-18 03:27:17 PM
1 votes:

GameSprocket: Yeah, the Apple store will usually just give you a new iPhone. Totally screwed.


Nope. They do refurbished ones. Like that time when they gave the kids a refurbed phone filled with porn... Just think, when you put that refurbed iPhone up to your face, it is the same screen some basement farker could have spooged all over while watching porn.

Gizmodo did a story about what happens to your stuff when Apple is "fixing" it.

http://gizmodo.com/5936324/exclusive-confessions-from-the-most-corrup t -apple-store-in-america
2012-10-18 03:20:52 PM
1 votes:

ScottRiqui: Bullseyed: ScottRiqui: Girion47: nomadalli: Shouldn't the Roddenberry family sue them all for stealing a Star Trek gadget?

Arthur C Clarke could so over IP infringement with the IPad, they existed in 2001 A Space Odyssey.

Well, for some meaning of "existed", I guess. Is there successful precedent for using a non-functional movie prop as "prior art"?

Yeah, it's called the definition of prior art...

StewieAreYouRetarded.jpg

I don't think it's that cut-and-dried. I can "design" lots of things that simply aren't physically possible to produce using state-of-the-art physics, materials and manufacturing processes. I don't think they would automatically qualify as "prior art" in a court case 40+ years later, when someone has actually made a function, useful gadget that resembles my design.

Also, there's a requirement that an invention must be "made available" to the public for it to count as prior art. Is a non-functional mockup of a tablet computer "available" to the public just because they saw it in a movie?

I'm not saying I know the correct answer, but I thought the question was valid enough that asking if I'm retarded seems like a bit of an overreaction.


It's prior art, not prior functional prototypes. By definition is needs not be a working item. Earlier in this thread they had that link to the law web site that went through the definition of prior art.

If you chose not to read it and ask a question that has already been answered, you deserve what you get!
2012-10-18 03:12:15 PM
1 votes:

PsyLord: Apple believes that every single person who ever bought a Samsung phone wanted to buy an iPhone and were unfairly tricked into buying a Samsung phone because they look so similar the consumer couldn't tell the difference.

Therefore, the amount due to Apple would be:

Profit per phone for Apple X number of Samsung phones sold = Penalty

Yes, because the word Samsung printed on the phone can be misread as Apple.


Just because Apple believes it doesn't mean it is true.

I'm guessing you failed at reading comprehension or were trying to elaborate on the sarcasm in my post.
2012-10-18 03:11:17 PM
1 votes:

fireclown: Bullseyed: Because stock value isn't based on fact. It isn't based on anything at all really.

It's based on what investors will pay for it at the stocks expected rate of payment. Think of it as an annuity.


The expected rate of payment up until recently was 0 since Apple paid no dividends for a very long time. Prior to dividend announcements, the price of Apple stock was based on pure speculation and fanboyness (aka nothing).

But yeah, keep trying to tell the MBA person about what an annuity is. /facepalm
2012-10-18 03:07:59 PM
1 votes:

Kit Fister: Here's a hint: if you don't like it, then DON'T farkING BUY IT.


I wanted to buy a Samsung, but Apple won't let me.
2012-10-18 03:07:41 PM
1 votes:

ScottRiqui: DerAppie: What I'm saying is exactly that. I pay €35 a month and I can get an identical minutes/SMS (100) and data (1gb) bundle for €15 if I only wanted the SIM-card. If I had a plan with the newest galaxy/iphone I would be paying up to €50 a month with a 2 year plan. Price difference of 35 * 24 = €840. That is more than the 700 I'd need to pay for the newest smartphone. Sure, after the cintract ends you get to pick a new phone but you'll be paying for that one to.

Ah - after reading your post, it's clearer now why it's usually Europeans and Asians who are buying my off-contract iPhones on eBay. I don't think the situation is the same here in the U.S. - if the service plans dropped precipitously in price once our phones went off-contract, for the same minutes/text/data limits, I think there would be a lot fewer people upgrading every two years.


That might change in the USA though. Verizon loses a shiatton of money on iPhones. They don't make enough back to cover the subsidy and operating costs if people upgrade too frequently. Since Apple idiots buy a new phone whenever one comes out, Verizon doesn't have time to recoup the loss.

This is a large part of why phone rates have been going up: Apple's fault.
2012-10-18 03:04:33 PM
1 votes:

fireclown: H31N0US: A better analogy would involve paying more money for an ed hardy tshirt.

But you can feel it in the fabric, it breathes non spectrum colors better than any other shirt you can buy.


OK. Then I"ll just fall back on the "I like being to change my own battery" argument. ;)


After a year or so of owning my Galaxy S2 the battery life was starting to suck. I took it to the Sprint store with a bulging battery. They took one look said "yep you need a new battery" and 5 minutes later I walked out with my phone in brand new condition.

With an iPhone you're just screwed.
2012-10-18 02:46:41 PM
1 votes:

Teknowaffle: Marine1: ZAZ:

Furthermore, let's remember something: Apple is currently the most valuable company in the history of business.

I will be honest. This fact astouds me. Apple products are not at all necessary for life or the economy. When exxon mobil was the biggest company, I could understand it. Oil runs the world, not iPhones. I have a hard time grasping the fact that a company that makes doo dads can be so important.

And you know, I wonder how long it will last. Competitors are putting out better products with far more innovations and taking far more chances. The app store is a cesspool. It seems like every app you download does nothingnmore than attempt to make itself more money. Ads for other shiatty apps on your screen, pop ups telling you to "unlock this feature for 20 dollars, buy a digital item for 50 bucks" ( this is of course a problem in the android store, but the apple app store has more exposure ). I don't think I have ab app not made by google that hasn't tried to hit me up for money. I just wonder if people will start to push back against the bullshiat.

/typing this on my iPad tethered to my samsung galaxy.


Because stock value isn't based on fact. It isn't based on anything at all really.
2012-10-18 02:44:19 PM
1 votes:

Bored Horde: 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.

From what I understand Apple get the outlandish profits from iTunes and the App store. Apple's business strategy for the past 10 years has been building the most attractive walled garden around.


Well, those things are zero cost all profit. So yes and no.

The typical iPhone costs Apple about $300 to make, based on industry estimates. They sell them for $700+ dollars each (133% profit). Most consumers don't pay that much, but the carrier do. That's why your phone bill is so high.
2012-10-18 02:41:42 PM
1 votes:

cervier: JPSimonetti: I like Apple products a lot, but I am just so sick of Apple. I am ashamed to admit I own them. You know?

You know this could be the beginning of a shift from the "Apple - cool company with cool stuff" to "Apple AKA The Microsoft of the 90's era". More and more people are beginning to be fed up with Apple's antics in court. In the end, it might even be good for Samsung, yes they have to pay a bazillion of dollars to Apple, but

1. this amount as huge as it seems is not big enough to make Samsung go out of business
2. more people see Samsung as the company that makes products as good as Apple with the bonus that you don't have to drink the Apple Kool-Aid and pay the Apple tax.

So in the end Samsung might be the big winner after all.


It sounds like a lot of money to people who know nothing about money. It won't make much of a dent in Samsung's financial statements. It is less than 1/5 of the PROFIT (not revenue) they made from selling screens, processors, ram, etc to Apple for the iPhones and iPads in the last 5 years.

That's right... once you take the Apple logo case off (the only thing Apple actually designs) what you're left with is mostly a Samsung product.
2012-10-18 02:39:08 PM
1 votes:
Its funny cause libs love Apple, the richest company in America, with over 100 billion in cash sitting there. They make huge profits with a big margin, and all their products are completely non-essential. Entertainment only.

But they hate oil companies, who make small margins, and are important for every single thing that we do.

Big Apple is the real evil.
2012-10-18 02:38:01 PM
1 votes:

Rev.K: ScottRiqui: Three times now, I've been able to sell my old iPhone on eBay for more than what the new one cost.

Wat?

Three times, someone bought your used iPhone for more than the cost of a brand new one?

Am I reading that right?


No, no. Someone paid him $200 (the subsidized cost) so they could have his old iPhone and not extend their contract.
2012-10-18 02:37:09 PM
1 votes:

ScottRiqui: Girion47: nomadalli: Shouldn't the Roddenberry family sue them all for stealing a Star Trek gadget?

Arthur C Clarke could so over IP infringement with the IPad, they existed in 2001 A Space Odyssey.

Well, for some meaning of "existed", I guess. Is there successful precedent for using a non-functional movie prop as "prior art"?


Yeah, it's called the definition of prior art...

StewieAreYouRetarded.jpg
2012-10-18 02:36:25 PM
1 votes:

Marine1: ZAZ: "Apple has not established that public availability of its product-specific unit sales, revenue, profit, profit margin, and cost data would actually provide its competitors with an advantage"

One of the things I hated about working for a megacorporation was the "everything is a secret" mentality. Spending less than .01% of your quarterly profit to buy technology from a small company is not a legitimate "die before you give up the secret" deal. But to corporate lawyers it is. Don't you dare tell a soul, not even your family, that you'll be in (city) next week. The perceived cost of disrupting employees' lives is zero, so they don't think twice about making stupid rules.

Furthermore, let's remember something: Apple is currently the most valuable company in the history of business. I honestly want to know just what irreparable harm was done to their company by Samsung producing the Galaxy series.


Not actually true when you adjust for inflation, but I get your point.
2012-10-18 02:31:59 PM
1 votes:

poot_rootbeer: Somebody help me understand this: if the issue at hand is whether Apple lost out on revenue due to people buying look-alike Samsung phones instead of authentic Apple phones, how does it help answer the question to know what Apple's per-unit profit margin is?

The judge's opinion seems to be "Techie blogs would be interested to find this out, therefore Apple can be compelled to make this proprietary business information public," which seems spurious to me.


Apple believes that every single person who ever bought a Samsung phone wanted to buy an iPhone and were unfairly tricked into buying a Samsung phone because they look so similar the consumer couldn't tell the difference.

Therefore, the amount due to Apple would be:

Profit per phone for Apple X number of Samsung phones sold = Penalty
2012-10-18 02:28:31 PM
1 votes:

you have pee hands: bingethinker: I see Samsung is still spreading anti-Apple propaganda instead of paying for better lawyers.

Sometimes it's cheaper to buy the judges.

/what?


See, I went with the "Apple bought the judge" thing early on... but now I'm wondering if that is true. The judge wanted this to get appealed, so she went along with the retarded jury. I think she's trying to put it up to a higher court so that someone can come down hard on Apple to stop shiat like this. She wants a big legal precedent to be set.
2012-10-18 02:13:07 PM
1 votes:

pute kisses like a man: 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.


This sounds ironically similar to:

Romney (Samsung)

vs

Obama (Apple)
2012-10-18 02:12:12 PM
1 votes:

pag1107: 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.


Worth noting that I'm pretty sure it is illegal not to disclose something like that... so either they knew and selected him anyways or he will be going to jail.
2012-10-18 02:09:39 PM
1 votes:

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 jury foreman was fired when he was working at Seagate (which is essentially owned by Samsung).

That's the reason why Samsung lost this case and won the same case in every other court and country in the entire world.
2012-10-18 02:02:55 PM
1 votes:

fireclown: nu lamb fen: Or because they're quality products?? Why do people pay a lot more for a Mercedes when they could spend half as much on a Chevy?

A better analogy would involve paying more money for an ed hardy tshirt.


But you can feel it in the fabric, it breathes non spectrum colors better than any other shirt you can buy.
2012-10-18 01:57:19 PM
1 votes:

ScottRiqui: HortusMatris: I guess I never really understood the whole wooey "Apple experience" thing. It's a farking phone. The only "experience" I require from a smart phone is being able to talk to people, text, use Google Maps when I get lost, check my email, listen to Pandora, play Angry Birds, and Google trivial facts that my kids are arguing about in the car to get them to shut up. I can do all this and more perfectly well on my Android, and save a bunch of money.

I'm not sure how big the long-term savings really are. Three times now, I've been able to sell my old iPhone on eBay for more than what the new one cost. Sure, it resets my two-year "contract clock" with AT&T each time, but I've been happy with their service and wasn't likely to be changing carriers anyway.

So in essence, I paid $200 for an iPhone once, back in 2008, and all of the subsequent upgrades have been free.


I'm too paranoid about identity theft to sell my used phones. I'm also too cheap to run out and get the newest model every year or two, though; I wait until a phone is dying to get a new one. One cheap cell phone usually lasts me several years, and by that time the technology has advanced so far that even the older models have me spending hours marveling over every silly little feature thinking "O, brave new world!" I may not be cool to the techies, but at least I'm easily satisfied.
2012-10-18 01:40:17 PM
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: CygnusDarius: Hell, even the gigantic phone-tablet hybrid I've seen (can't remember the name) while unwieldy as a phone, it's a pretty cool piece of tech.

Probably the Note. I played with it when I was looking for a new phone, and it was pretty slick. Looked a bit silly holding it up to my ear though.


Made me think of the old side-talkin' days.
2012-10-18 01:40:05 PM
1 votes:
At some point if a jury intentionally ignores the law and jury instructions it should become a civil and/or criminal matter to the members of the jury that do so.
2012-10-18 01:32:46 PM
1 votes:

KierzanDax: JPSimonetti: I like Apple products a lot, but I am just so sick of Apple. I am ashamed to admit I own them. You know?

You can come over and hang out in our Zune club. We have jackets. We meet every Thursday at 6. Bring snacks.


WHAT!? I was told there would be pie!
2012-10-18 01:26:45 PM
1 votes:

Bored Horde: 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.

From what I understand Apple get the outlandish profits from iTunes and the App store. Apple's business strategy for the past 10 years has been building the most attractive walled garden around.


This. And the Galaxy line still didn't stop them from getting enough profit to oust 1999 Microsoft as the most valuable company ever.

Apple sued Samsung on the grounds that the Galaxy line had copied from Apple and had caused irreparable harm to their company. This is akin to saying that the United States was irreparably harmed by the founding of South Sudan a few years ago.
2012-10-18 01:23:17 PM
1 votes:

JPSimonetti: I like Apple products a lot, but I am just so sick of Apple. I am ashamed to admit I own them. You know?


You know this could be the beginning of a shift from the "Apple - cool company with cool stuff" to "Apple AKA The Microsoft of the 90's era". More and more people are beginning to be fed up with Apple's antics in court. In the end, it might even be good for Samsung, yes they have to pay a bazillion of dollars to Apple, but

1. this amount as huge as it seems is not big enough to make Samsung go out of business
2. more people see Samsung as the company that makes products as good as Apple with the bonus that you don't have to drink the Apple Kool-Aid and pay the Apple tax.

So in the end Samsung might be the big winner after all.
2012-10-18 01:22:47 PM
1 votes:

ScottRiqui: Girion47: nomadalli: Shouldn't the Roddenberry family sue them all for stealing a Star Trek gadget?

Arthur C Clarke could so over IP infringement with the IPad, they existed in 2001 A Space Odyssey.

Well, for some meaning of "existed", I guess. Is there successful precedent for using a non-functional movie prop as "prior art"?


I can't cite a case, but are you really trying to argue that prior art doesn't qualify as prior art?
2012-10-18 01:17:15 PM
1 votes:

kpaxoid: ha-ha-guy: poot_rootbeer: Somebody help me understand this: if the issue at hand is whether Apple lost out on revenue due to people buying look-alike Samsung phones instead of authentic Apple phones, how does it help answer the question to know what Apple's per-unit profit margin is?

The judge's opinion seems to be "Techie blogs would be interested to find this out, therefore Apple can be compelled to make this proprietary business information public," which seems spurious to me.

Apple is contending it could have sold X million more units for Y profit without Samsung. So the judge is demanding to see the profit as proof X * Profit Per Unit = Y. Basically he's demanding Apple show their work for calculating their damages.

But they're Apple. Can't they just say somethings true and it will be?


That's what they thought too. The judge disagreed.
2012-10-18 01:17:05 PM
1 votes:

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?


It helps having a jury foreman with an axe to grind against Samsung.

I don't think it will make it that far though, either it will be thrown out on appeal or apple will settle for a third so they don't have to release profit data.
2012-10-18 01:16:21 PM
1 votes:

ScottRiqui: Three times now, I've been able to sell my old iPhone on eBay for more than what the new one cost.


Wat?

Three times, someone bought your used iPhone for more than the cost of a brand new one?

Am I reading that right?
2012-10-18 01:09:00 PM
1 votes:
I guess I never really understood the whole wooey "Apple experience" thing. It's a farking phone. The only "experience" I require from a smart phone is being able to talk to people, text, use Google Maps when I get lost, check my email, listen to Pandora, play Angry Birds, and Google trivial facts that my kids are arguing about in the car to get them to shut up. I can do all this and more perfectly well on my Android, and save a bunch of money.
2012-10-18 01:08:12 PM
1 votes:

ha-ha-guy: poot_rootbeer: Somebody help me understand this: if the issue at hand is whether Apple lost out on revenue due to people buying look-alike Samsung phones instead of authentic Apple phones, how does it help answer the question to know what Apple's per-unit profit margin is?

The judge's opinion seems to be "Techie blogs would be interested to find this out, therefore Apple can be compelled to make this proprietary business information public," which seems spurious to me.

Apple is contending it could have sold X million more units for Y profit without Samsung. So the judge is demanding to see the profit as proof X * Profit Per Unit = Y. Basically he's demanding Apple show their work for calculating their damages.


But they're Apple. Can't they just say somethings true and it will be?
2012-10-18 12:51:25 PM
1 votes:

bingethinker: I see Samsung is still spreading anti-Apple propaganda instead of paying for better lawyers.


Sometimes it's cheaper to buy the judges.

/what?
2012-10-18 12:48:33 PM
1 votes:
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?

Well for one thing the trial was held in the US...that should explain it
2012-10-18 12:44:43 PM
1 votes:

misthop: What I said or the law?


The law.

Haha! Boy, I looked like a real dick there, didn't I?
2012-10-18 12:42:53 PM
1 votes:
No OBVIOUS tag? If you claim damages, you have to prove damages.
2012-10-18 12:40:00 PM
1 votes:
In other news, Apple has to publicly state that Samsung did not copy the iPad in the UK story
2012-10-18 12:37:03 PM
1 votes:

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 12:35:48 PM
1 votes:

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 12:31:18 PM
1 votes:

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 12:29:51 PM
1 votes:

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 12:27:44 PM
1 votes:

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 12:23:05 PM
1 votes:
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 12:21:57 PM
1 votes:

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 12:20:28 PM
1 votes:

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 12:16:22 PM
1 votes:

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 12:16:10 PM
1 votes:
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 12:15:52 PM
1 votes:
graphics8.nytimes.com 

Where I buy all the things that make me different.
2012-10-18 12:12:42 PM
1 votes:
Nevermind
4.bp.blogspot.com
2012-10-18 12:12:37 PM
1 votes:
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 12:11:16 PM
1 votes:

AlgertMan: fark Apple.


This, x1000
2012-10-18 12:10:36 PM
1 votes:
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 12:08:19 PM
1 votes:
fark Apple.
 
Displayed 70 of 70 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report