Can you give any argument for this?
It is clear then that you don't know why the 450 millions have to be recalculated in a new trial
No, it isn't
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New Damages Trial in Apple v. Samsung Set for November
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Can you give any argument for this?
It is clear then that you don't know why the 450 millions have to be recalculated in a new trial
No, it isn't
With apple's HQ being in california makes the trial unfair. No doubt there is consideration of reprisal from apple if it were to loose. Have it in a neutral state that doesn't litigate allot of patents. Definately not texas though.
Sure. United States law. No one accused should be subjected to trial over and over and over again until the prosecution gets it right. Prosecutor gets one chance, and that's it. Being accused of a crime is a serious affront. Better make the argument good.
Related: statute of limitations. You can't be accusing somebody of a crime 20 years later unless it's murder.
Doesn't matter why the $450m is being recalculated. It's when. Question is, why didn't the prosecution bring this discrepancy to trial or shortly thereafter? Why didn't they have all the facts? They had their chance, it's too late now. See above.
This is not the case, the accused is not subjected to trial over and over
This is not the case, the accused is not subjected to trial over and over
Really, you should inform you about the case because you seem to ignore even the basic facts about it. The damages discrepancy error was brought at the right time.
http://www.groklaw.net is a good place
And, by the way, this is a civil case, not a criminal one
Apples Perfect Storm
http://www.systematic-innovation.com/Articles/2013/DLM2013-01.pdf
Here is an article comparing Apple and Samsung using a qualitative analysis of patents. It is a totally objective / dispassionate view - but highlights the futility of the battle between these behemoths.
(Note: this is written by a Guy I am in business with - not making any money out of this particular thing though - he was simply writing it to demonstrate how our patent analysis software tool works - and in fact how we approach some of the job of navigating the IP jungle for our clients - I got his permission to post it here in case anyone is interested)
Paul
http://www.systematic-innovation.com/Articles/2013/DLM2013-01.pdf
Here is an article comparing Apple and Samsung using a qualitative analysis of patents. It is a totally objective / dispassionate view - but highlights the futility of the battle between these behemoths.
(Note: this is written by a Guy I am in business with - not making any money out of this particular thing though - he was simply writing it to demonstrate how our patent analysis software tool works - and in fact how we approach some of the job of navigating the IP jungle for our clients - I got his permission to post it here in case anyone is interested)
Paul
Nope. stockholders aren't Apple's only source of income. When you purchase an Apple product, at least some of that money eventually goes to Apple Legal, unless you actually believe they segregate their revenue streams, or there is no overall allocation of income, or even that their legal department is some sort of independent separate and self-sustaining company.
----------
Not like the price is going to move down...with less lawsuits.
Price has no bearing on whether you're paying for it or not. As long as you give money to Apple, you're contributing to their lawsuit funds.
Seemingly you have a very weak grasp of the topic at hand. Stockholders are not a source of income. Any conclusions drawn from that premise are therefore unreliable.
So you also think apple should be sued for much more than a billion?
If you're against copying you kinda HAVE TO feel that way to.
Or do you admit to being incredibly biased?
Why? Because they outdid apple time and time again and left apple still taking features?
How does making way less money than Apple equate to "outdid Apple"?
----------
"The new damages trial will take place on November 12, 13, 14, 15, and 18, 2013. Eight jurors will be selected, and for the purposes of their new damages verdict, the first jury's infringement findings will be law of the case, as the court rejected Samsung's argument that a new trial also has to re-evaluate liability issues."
The prosecution/judge should only get one shot at handing out a sentence. It's ok to re-sentence if it will be a lighter sentence, but not for a harsher one.
If this were allowed in other smaller cases, we'd have an unending trial system. Great observation, this is not a criminal case. You should probably read that website yourself.
It is not a re sentence and it is not a new trial to look if there is infringement, it is only to calculate the damages because they were calculated wrongly.
But I leave, it is clear that you don't want to know what the thing is about
This is a point people forget. Samsung is guilty of infringement in this case. They're not going to be innocent suddenly after this damages trial is over. Apple doesn't need a billion dollars...they make that weekly.
You might as well quit while you're behind. "Stockholders are not a source of income"? That kind of nonsensical statement just undermined what knowledge about the topic you thought you had. When combined with "stockholders are paying for it", you've basically checked out of the discussion. If stockholders aren't a source of income, they can't also be paying for it.
If you don't know how companies raise funds in different ways, or how total revenue gets allocated, I'd suggest reading up on it first.
Depends, positive decisions for apple result in a snappier safari 84% of the time.
----------
They should just stop the fighting and get a room. They are in love and don't yet realize it.
Stockholders "pay for it" by losing profits. They are not a source of income to a company.
the statements are not inconsistent.
Dude, if stockholders are not a source of income to a company, no company would ever issue them in the first place, nor would there be IPOs. Stockholders are not an ongoing source of income, granted. But to say that stockholders pay for legal costs via lost profits is begging the question of where those profits come from. To lose profits, a company must already have them. Those profits are generated through sales revenue (i.e. you and I), not stockholders.
And legal fees, like all other expenses, come out of revenue. Apple Legal does not print its own money supply.
Everything impacts appeal odds. Having a rehearing for part of the damages undoubtedly will have an impact on issues that may lead to a succesful appeal.