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

Apple Asks for $379 Million in Damages Retrial Against Samsung

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,525
30,827



Apple and Samsung entered a new damages retrial this week, to determine the amount of money that Samsung must pay for copying key iPhone features and design elements.

During opening statements, Apple asked for $379 million in damages, while Samsung suggested it should only pay $52 million. "Apple is simply asking for much more money than it's entitled to," said Samsung attorney William Price (via CNET).

apple_samsung_logos.jpg
According to Apple attorney Harold McElhinny, Apple's figure is based on lost profits of $114 million, Samsung's profits of $231 million, and royalties of $35 million.
Apple estimates it would have sold 360,000 devices if Samsung hadn't released infringing rivals. He noted that Samsung sold 10.7 million infringing devices, generating $3.5 billion in revenue.

"In a fair fight, that money should have gone to Apple," McElhinny said.
Click to expand...
Last year, Samsung was ordered to pay Apple a total of $1.05 billion after a jury found the South Korean company guilty of willfully violating multiple Apple patents. Back in March, Judge Lucy Koh struck $450 million from the $1 billion awarded to Samsung after deciding the jury may have miscalculated the damages due to a misunderstanding of patent issues.

The retrial, which is ongoing, may see Apple call witnesses like marketing chief Phil Schiller and former senior vice president of iOS software Scott Forstall, who was ousted from the company in late 2012. It appears the retrial may ultimately benefit Samsung, as Apple's $379 million request is significantly lower than the nullified $450 million award, though Samsung is also responsible for the $600 million that was not struck from the first jury decision.

Article Link: Apple Asks for $379 Million in Damages Retrial Against Samsung
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2013/11/13/apple-asks-for-379-million-in-damages-retrial-against-samsung/
Rogifan

Rogifan

macrumors Penryn
Nov 14, 2011
24,135
31,186
So wait, is this a retrial on the $450 million the judge struck from the original award or a retrial of the entire $1 billion award? :confused:
 
S

SethBoy

macrumors regular
Jun 23, 2007
217
632
MacRumors said:
The retrial, which is ongoing, may see Apple call witnesses like marketing chief Phil Schiller and former senior vice president of iOS software Scott Forstall, who was ousted from the company in late 2012. It appears the retrial may ultimately benefit Samsung, as Apple's $379 million request is significantly lower than the original award.
Click to expand...

Wait, isn't the retrial regarding the $450 million struck down by the judge? The last sentence seems to imply the entire $1 billion is at stake.
 
U

unplugme71

macrumors 68030
May 20, 2011
2,827
754
Earth
Can't we sue because we are tired of all these lawsuits? It's causing me headaches and pain. I'm also emotionally damaged that a company I admire is going through such legal actions.
 
jclo

jclo

Managing Editor
Staff member
Dec 7, 2012
1,970
4,302
Rogifan said:
So wait, is this a retrial on the $450 million the judge struck from the original award or a retrial of the entire $1 billion award? :confused:
Click to expand...

I clarified that a bit in the post -- it's just a retrial on $450 million. Samsung has to pay the additional $600 million that wasn't struck from the first award.
 
S

SethBoy

macrumors regular
Jun 23, 2007
217
632
Actually, $0.5 billion, $1 billion or even $3 billion… I think Samsung has made profits far in excess of these sums by being the most effective copycat of Apple.
 
jclo

jclo

Managing Editor
Staff member
Dec 7, 2012
1,970
4,302
SethBoy said:
Wait, isn't the retrial regarding the $450 million struck down by the judge? The last sentence seems to imply the entire $1 billion is at stake.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was more than the $450 billion, so I added a bit to the end. Hopefully that makes it clearer.
 
Rogifan

Rogifan

macrumors Penryn
Nov 14, 2011
24,135
31,186
jclo said:
I clarified that a bit in the post -- it's just a retrial on $450 million. Samsung has to pay the additional $600 million that wasn't struck from the first award.
Click to expand...

Ok. Just curious if Samsung is appealing the $600 million? 9to5Mac claims payment is pending appeal.
 
J

JohnPhamlore

macrumors regular
Aug 3, 2011
125
10
Nokia paid Qualcomm $2.3 billion and no one discusses that today

Let's put this amount into perspective. In 2008, Nokia settled with Qualcomm and cut Qualcomm an approximately $2.3 billion USD check:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/17/business/fi-qualcomm17

And at the time the idiot pundits thought NOKIA had won the battle. Years later we see that Nokia despite supposedly making a deal to use Qualcomm's CDMA patents never had their phones able to reenter the Verizon side of the US market until Nokia switched completely to Qualcomm ARM SoCs (and Windows Phone), Nokia had their phone business collapse, and Qualcomm went on to buy ATI's mobile graphics division creating their own ARM SoC that now dominates the US market and LTE in general with competition only catching up around now. Even Apple switched from Infineon, after Intel purchased that company, to now using Qualcomm's baseband chips.
 
Oletros

Oletros

macrumors 603
Jul 27, 2009
6,002
60
Premià de Mar
JohnPhamlore said:
Let's put this amount into perspective. In 2008, Nokia settled with Qualcomm and cut Qualcomm an approximately $2.3 billion USD check:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/17/business/fi-qualcomm17

And at the time the idiot pundits thought NOKIA had won the battle. Years later we see that Nokia despite supposedly making a deal to use Qualcomm's CDMA patents never had their phones able to reenter the Verizon side of the US market until Nokia switched completely to Qualcomm ARM SoCs (and Windows Phone), Nokia had their phone business collapse, and Qualcomm went on to buy ATI's mobile graphics division creating their own ARM SoC that now dominates the US market and LTE in general with competition only catching up around now. Even Apple switched from Infineon, after Intel purchased that company, to now using Qualcomm's baseband chips.
Click to expand...

And exactly why is that relevant to the Apple vs Samsung case?
 
eiuro

eiuro

macrumors member
Feb 28, 2013
63
34
Samsung is the biggest copycat in the history of technology. Their market share is made up of cheap low end phones. Not a fan at all. Not because I own apple products but because they have no vision and nothing of interest to me other than TV's. Ok bye.
 
J

JohnPhamlore

macrumors regular
Aug 3, 2011
125
10
Oletros said:
And exactly why is that relevant to the Apple vs Samsung case?
Click to expand...

The amount Apple MIGHT win in the lawsuit is properly seen as chickenfeed, and they're not going to win exclusivity over use of their claimed IP either unlike what Qualcomm achieved.

As I asked many months ago, what exactly is the definition of victory in this lawsuit for Apple?

Let's contrast this to Microsoft whose goal was attaining pure cash and now is able to license their exFAT patents to the Android phone makers to the tune of billions of dollars in licensing fees every year.
 
giantfan1224

giantfan1224

macrumors 6502a
Mar 9, 2012
870
1,115
unplugme71 said:
Can't we sue because we are tired of all these lawsuits? It's causing me headaches and pain. I'm also emotionally damaged that a company I admire is going through such legal actions.
Click to expand...

This isn't a new lawsuit. This one's been going on for a while. This is just an update. And, shouldn't a "company you admire" do everything it can to protect its intellectual property? Since that's ultimately what separates that "company you'd admire" from one you might not?

----------
chabig said:
To do what...make infringement legal?
Click to expand...

I'm sure Samsung would like that. Although I think they may believe that patent infringement is already legal...

----------
roadbloc said:
So much for 1 billion lol
Click to expand...

I know! $979 million isn't anywhere close to $1 billion!!
 
patent10021

patent10021

macrumors 68040
Apr 23, 2004
3,504
792
darkslide29 said:
Apple's $379 million request is significantly lower than the nullified $450 million award, though Samsung is also responsible for the $600 million that was not struck from the first jury decision.

So, still up there, still close to.
Click to expand...
Yes it's back up to one billion if they get this 379. Perpetual royalty checks would be better though.
 
Consultant

Consultant

macrumors G5
Jun 27, 2007
13,314
34
Even if the full amount is awarded it's still pocket change for ScamSung.

Won't deter them at all.
 
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