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

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Apr 8, 2014.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    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.

    [​IMG]
    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.
    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.
    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
     
  2. macrumors 6502

    0xyMoron

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Location:
    California
    #2
    I can't wait for this to be over.
     
  3. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    #3
    And in one day this thread will reach 30 pages of samesung comments...
     
  4. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2014
    #4
    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
     
  5. macrumors 601

    OrangeSVTguy

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Location:
    Northeastern Ohio
    #5
    Ok apple. Empty out your couch cushions and pay that 7 million.
     
  6. macrumors 68040

    DakotaGuy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    South Dakota, USA
    #6
    Glad my home is Samsung free except for Samsung components inside of my Apple products. Sort of ironic isn't it? :)
     
  7. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    #7
    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
     
  8. Guest

    keterboy

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2014
    Location:
    Earth's Core
    #8
    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:
     
  9. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC CANADA
    #9
    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.
     
  10. macrumors 68020

    carjakester

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Location:
    Midwest
    #10
    what really is 2 billion to these companies? apple just wants to send a message to its competitors.
     
  11. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    #11
    Yeah we will all conveniently forget Apple stole the idea in the first place from the 2005 smartphone the Neonode N1m.

    ----------

    Yes, that it will sue you to gain market share.
     
  12. macrumors 68040

    tech4all

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2004
    Location:
    NorCal
    #12

    Nobody cares and neither does Apple. :rolleyes:
     
  13. Giuly, Apr 8, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2014

    macrumors 68040

    Giuly

    #13
    [​IMG]

    There was no "Samsung brand" prior to the Galaxy S, and Android was this:
    [​IMG]
     
  14. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    #14
    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.
     
  15. macrumors 68020

    inkswamp

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2003
    #15
    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.
     
  16. macrumors 65816

    taptic

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2012
    Location:
    California
    #16
    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...
     
  17. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2014
    #17
    Yep, and proved it with 132 pages of advice to implement blatant plagiarism.
     
  18. macrumors 68020

    inkswamp

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2003
    #18
    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.
     
  19. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    #19
    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?
     
  20. macrumors G5

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #20
    I hope Steve's holy war is worth it. Make no mistake, Tim Cook is just finishing what Steve started.
     
  21. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2014
    #21
    You want them to do a survey of hundreds of millions of people?

    :D Okkk
     
  22. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    #22
    Lol, I care. I care for the greater good. xD
     
  23. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC CANADA
    #23
    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.
     
  24. apolloa, Apr 8, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2014

    macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    #24
    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.
     
  25. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #25
    A sample size ten times this amount is required here.

    Besides; are these really saleable features, honestly.
     

Share This Page