Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Calls in Experts to Explain Why Samsung Owes $2B in Damages

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,714
31,142



In the ongoing Samsung vs. Apple lawsuit, two experts hired by Apple took the stand on Tuesday to explain to the jury why Samsung deserves to pay $2 billion in damages for infringing on Apple's patents.

First up was John Hauser, a professor of marketing at the MIT Sloan School of Management, who argued (via CNET) that the specific features patented by Apple, such as slide to unlock, made Samsung's devices far more appealing to consumers.

apple_samsung_logos.jpg
To reach that conclusion, Hauser surveyed 966 Samsung device users (507 phone owners and 459 tablet owners) to measure the percentage of consumers who would buy devices with specific features, including universal search, background syncing, quick links, automatic word correction, and slide-to-unlock, among others.

Those metrics were then used to determine how much people would pay for the Apple-patented features that Samsung included in its devices, with Hauser coming to the conclusion that customers would shell out $32 to $102 for each feature.
"The features that were enabled by the patents at issue in this case have a measurable impact on consumer demand for Samsung devices," Hauser said during his testimony Tuesday.
Click to expand...
During cross examination, Samsung objected to Hauser's methodology, which had concluded that Samsung largely sold devices due to the features copied from Apple, and criticized it for overlooking the importance of the Samsung brand and the Android operating system.

Following Hauser's testimony, MIT-trained economist Chris Vellturo took the stand (via Re/code) to explain how Apple arrived at its $2 billion number. The damages, he said, are a mix of lost profits and estimated reasonable royalties on the millions Samsung devices that have been accused of infringing on Apple's patents.
"It's a very large market and Samsung has made a lot of sales into that market," Vellturo said, before getting into the specifics of how he came to his estimate. Samsung's alleged infringement, he said, came at a time of dramatic growth in the market as many people were buying their first smartphone.

"It's a particularly significant period for Samsung to have been infringing," Vellturo said, adding that one's first smartphone purchase is a key determining factor in future phone and tablet purchases. He added that Samsung was behind in ease of use and took Apple's know-how to aid its effort to be more competitive.
Click to expand...
In the original Apple vs. Samsung trial, Samsung was ordered to pay Apple $890 million in damages. The latest suit focuses on newer devices, including the Galaxy S III, Galaxy Note II, Galaxy Tab 10.1, the iPhone 4/4s/5, the iPad 2/3/4, the iPad mini, and fourth and fifth generation iPod touch.

Following today's expert testimony, Apple is nearing the end of its case against Samsung. Next week, Samsung will present its infringement case against Apple, where it is asking for $7 million in damages. The entire trial is expected to continue until April 29 or 30, at which point the jury will enter deliberations.

Article Link: Apple Calls in Experts to Explain Why Samsung Owes $2B in Damages
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/04/08/apple-samsung-2-billion-damages/
E

epic-retouching

macrumors member
Jan 17, 2014
89
0
good on Apple. Tear that controversial company to pieces one hit at a time. Maybe Samsung will learn after a few more hits maybe not, either way is win/win for the world
 
A

apolloa

Suspended
Oct 21, 2008
12,318
7,802
Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
And also, Apple is demanding 2 billion based on what a tiny 1000 people example group state? When it is an Android feature to have slide to unlock is it not? Oh and let's not forget Apple was not the first with the slide to unlock feature.

This seriously smells of desperation
 
keterboy

keterboy

Guest
Jan 22, 2014
152
0
Earth's Core
Ok now the comments of those two MIT experts made my day haha.

Im praying for a huge win, which will hopefully set an example once and for all.

Amen. :apple:
 
C

coolfactor

macrumors 604
Jul 29, 2002
7,108
9,841
Vancouver, BC
DakotaGuy said:
Glad my home is Samsung free except for Samsung components inside of my Apple products. Sort of ironic isn't it? :)
Click to expand...

Well, nobody is arguing against Samsung being technically capable. That's why Apple pays them for several components. But those are not consumer-facing, so there's no marketing vector at work. Apple does not say "Buy this iPhone because it has a Samsung display!". It's the finished products and the end-user experience that are on trial here (ie. the marketable stuff). Samsung took key Apple designs and used them in its own products to give them a competitive edge. That's stealing.
 
A

apolloa

Suspended
Oct 21, 2008
12,318
7,802
Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
coolfactor said:
Well, nobody is arguing against Samsung being technically capable. That's why Apple pays them for several components. But those are not consumer-facing, so there's no marketing vector at work. Apple does not say "Buy this iPhone because it has a Samsung display!". It's the finished products and the end-user experience that are on trial here (ie. the marketable stuff). Samsung took key Apple designs and used them in its own products to give them a competitive edge. That's stealing.
Click to expand...

Yeah we will all conveniently forget Apple stole the idea in the first place from the 2005 smartphone the Neonode N1m.

----------
carjakester said:
what really is 2 billion to these companies? apple just wants to send a message to its competitors.
Click to expand...

Yes, that it will sue you to gain market share.
 
M

MrRez

macrumors member
Oct 11, 2012
38
0
Apple really has no right to be taking the morale high ground here. Stealing ideas and products is what apple is built on. The only people that lose is these type of cases are the consumers.
 
inkswamp

inkswamp

macrumors 68030
Jan 26, 2003
2,953
1,278
apolloa said:
And also, Apple is demanding 2 billion based on what a tiny 1000 people example group state? When it is an Android feature to have slide to unlock is it not? Oh and let's not forget Apple was not the first with the slide to unlock feature.

This seriously smells of desperation
Click to expand...

I take it you've never studied statistics and polling methodologies. Assuming the participants were randomly chosen and the survey was conducted scientifically, 1000 people should be more than enough to get an accurate view of things.

Also, what's your source for Apple not being the first with slide-to-unlock? That's the first I've heard it.
 
taptic

taptic

macrumors 65816
Dec 5, 2012
1,341
437
California
Wow, that was rather impressive. When I first read the headline I thought, "Oh great... another stupid reason with barely any common sense behind it..." and though I still mostly stick to that opinion, I was surprised at the way he put together his argument. Quite interesting...
 
I

initwithnibname

macrumors member
Apr 8, 2014
48
0
coolfactor said:
Well, nobody is arguing against Samsung being technically capable. That's why Apple pays them for several components. But those are not consumer-facing, so there's no marketing vector at work. Apple does not say "Buy this iPhone because it has a Samsung display!". It's the finished products and the end-user experience that are on trial here (ie. the marketable stuff). Samsung took key Apple designs and used them in its own products to give them a competitive edge. That's stealing.
Click to expand...

Yep, and proved it with 132 pages of advice to implement blatant plagiarism.
 
inkswamp

inkswamp

macrumors 68030
Jan 26, 2003
2,953
1,278
MrRez said:
Apple really has no right to be taking the morale high ground here. Stealing ideas and products is what apple is built on. The only people that lose is these type of cases are the consumers.
Click to expand...

It's not about stealing ideas per se. It's about using someone else's patented ideas and not paying for it.

Give me an example of Apple using someone else's patent and refusing to pay for it. They have used patented ideas in their products previously and have paid for it.

Samsung, however, refuses to acknowledge it. That's the difference.
 
A

apolloa

Suspended
Oct 21, 2008
12,318
7,802
Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
inkswamp said:
I take it you've never studied statistics and polling methodologies. Assuming the participants were randomly chosen and the survey was conducted scientifically, 1000 people should be more than enough to get an accurate view of things.

Also, what's your source for Apple not being the first with slide-to-unlock? That's the first I've heard it.
Click to expand...

I posted the phone above. And no, when you are asking for an utterly ridiculous over bloated amount of money, 1000 is no where near enough, is it basing that 2 billion on international sales or American sales?
 
Rogifan

Rogifan

macrumors Penryn
Nov 14, 2011
24,252
31,336
I hope Steve's holy war is worth it. Make no mistake, Tim Cook is just finishing what Steve started.
 
I

initwithnibname

macrumors member
Apr 8, 2014
48
0
apolloa said:
I posted the phone above. And no, when you are asking for an utterly ridiculous over bloated amount of money, 1000 is no where near enough, is it basing that 2 billion on international sales or American sales?
Click to expand...

You want them to do a survey of hundreds of millions of people?

:D Okkk
 
C

coolfactor

macrumors 604
Jul 29, 2002
7,108
9,841
Vancouver, BC
apolloa said:
And also, Apple is demanding 2 billion based on what a tiny 1000 people example group state? When it is an Android feature to have slide to unlock is it not? Oh and let's not forget Apple was not the first with the slide to unlock feature.

This seriously smells of desperation
Click to expand...

I agree. Apple should not have been granted a patent for Slide-to-Unlock based on prior art. But that doesn't excuse Samsung from using the same interface to sell their products. Clearly, they intended to ride on Apple's success, so they should reimburse Apple.
 
A

apolloa

Suspended
Oct 21, 2008
12,318
7,802
Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
initwithnibname said:
You want them to do a survey of hundreds of millions of people?

:D Okkk
Click to expand...

Erm, yes? You are attempting to sue a corporation for an idea you already stole based on an utterly tiny example size compared to the millions and millions and millions who have bought Samsung devices with Androids slide to unlock :rolleyes:





Oh and here you go for those with very short memories, I present the 2004 Windows CE Neonode N1m WITH Slide To Unlock:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Tj-KS2kfIr0#t=193

And here is a news story from the VERY respectable BBC news where it reported on how Apple LOST it's case against HTC for using the slide to unlock in the UK because it had already existed in other devices BEFORE the iPhone:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18709232

Quote:

The judge said that HTC's "arc unlock" feature - which also involves a predefined gesture along a path shown on-screen - would have infringed Apple's technology had it not been for a device released in 2004.

The Neonode N1 showed a padlock on its screen with the words "right sweep to unlock" when it was in its protected mode. A later version replaced the text with an arrow.

The judge said it would have been an "obvious" improvement for the developers to have offered users visual feedback in the form of a "slider" in the way that Apple later used.

So yes, whilst in other countries Apple is LOSING it's court cases on the slide to unlock feature due to the Neonode device, apparently in America it can sue you for it and they choose to ignore the Neonode, well I guess that depends on if Apple wins, if they do then we will all know American courts lack any common sense, or sense or right and wrong.

But then again it's sad enough that they are claiming their current models and previous 3 years of models all breach whatever patents they most likely shouldn't have been given.
 
Last edited:
Z

Zaqfalcon

macrumors 6502
Mar 22, 2010
361
138
A sample size ten times this amount is required here.

Besides; are these really saleable features, honestly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom