Apple Seeking $2.5 Billion from Samsung in U.S. Patent and Design Infringement Trial

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Jul 24, 2012.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

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


    FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller reports that recently-filed court documents in the ongoing U.S. patent and design dispute between Apple and Samsung reveal that Apple is seeking a total of $2.5 billion from Samsung to cover alleged infringement by Samsung's mobile products. From the court filing:
    [​IMG]


    Mueller notes that Apple is not allowed to collect both royalties and profits from a single device, and thus focuses its claims on the $2 billion figure related to design infringement, as that tactic would allow Apple to request both lost profits of its own and unfairly earned profits by Samsung on those devices. In calculating the royalty rates it believes it is owed for Samsung's use of Apple's intellectual property, Apple arrived at the following figures:
    On a separate note, Apple's filings also reveal its estimates of how much it should pay in royalties for Samsung's patents, which are related to 3G standards and are required to be licensed under fair and reasonable terms. While Samsung has been requesting a royalty rate of 2.4% on Apple's sales of 3G devices, Apple argues that the amount should only be one-half cent per unit based on Samsung's small share of essential 3G patents and a belief that the royalty should be calculated on the cost of the baseband processor rather than the entire device.

    As part of the ongoing court case, Apple CEO Tim Cook met with Samsung CEO Choi Gee-sung back in late May, but the negotiations yielded little progress. Reuters reported yesterday that the two executives met again last week but that the sides remain far apart in their valuations of their respective intellectual property.

    Article Link: Apple Seeking $2.5 Billion from Samsung in U.S. Patent and Design Infringement Trial
     
  2. macrumors 68030

    ChrisTX

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2009
    Location:
    Texas
  3. macrumors regular

    hexx

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Location:
    London, UK, \m/
    #3
    why?
     
  4. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
  5. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
  6. macrumors 68020

    keysofanxiety

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #6
    See, you say that -- but look back 5 years to the introduction of the iPhone, and everything was utterly revolutionary. Steve mentioned that they patented the Hell out of it, and that they intend to protect their intellectual property. The patents mentioned in this lawsuit are just some of those.

    As much as I hate these constant patent battles, I'm with Apple on this one.
     
  7. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    #7
    Was just about to ask that... :rolleyes:
     
  8. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    #8
    So Apple is being ridiculous with their patents but Samsung is not?
     
  9. macrumors 68040

    MonkeySee....

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    #9
    I have zero respect for Samsung.

    Hit them hard, Apple.
     
  10. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    #10
    No the first iPhone wasn't revolutionary. It didn't even runs 3rd party apps, for heaven's sake. The only thing different was multi-touch. I had a touch based Windows CE based phone at the time that ran circles around it. It's just that Apple made smartphones POPULAR because of the core fanatical fanbase.

    They need to stop these ridiculous lawsuits.
     
  11. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2011
    #11
    Pls, I beg you not to use this logo again ... it annoys my visual cortex >.<
     
  12. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    #12
    The overscroll-bounce visual effect Apple "patent" is supposedly worth $2.02 per unit, but "essential 3G patents" should be $0.005 per unit.
     
  13. macrumors 68030

    benthewraith

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    #13
    500 million in lost profits you say... you made $11.6 billion in net profits in the second quarter of 2012 alone.
     
  14. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    #14
    Amazing. Just amazing. Such utter dribble and ahistorical nonsense.
     
  15. macrumors 603

    Rocketman

    #15
    When they met, they probably reviewed the lawyers positions who are smarter than them, said screw it, and had a few drinks.

    Then they spent their time on more valuable matters like status of supply and manufacturing work, and future endeavors between one of the world's largest manufacturers and one of the world's largest sellers.

    I wonder what they had to drink and eat?

    Rocketman
     
  16. Guest

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2012
    #16
    I like the part where Apple fanboys and Samsung holdouts fight it out on behalf of the lawyers in a massive battlefield of good versus evil.
     
  17. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    #17
    The important word here is 'essential'. You don't NEED bouncy lists but you do need the 3G patents. Hence Apple doesn't need to let you have them cheaply.
     
  18. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2004
    Location:
    Coquitlam, BC
    #18
    I could see tap to zoom being a standard, but copying over scroll bounce would be a blatant infringement.
     
  19. macrumors 6502

    BigMcGuire

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    #19
    Isn't it true that the only ones that really benefit from this are the patent lawyers? Sure Apple is trying to stick it to Samsung but 2.5 billion? I doubt they'll get anywhere near that, and the lawyers get a huge % of whatever is agreed?
     
  20. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    #20
    The number one goal of a company that is non profit is to make as much money as possible wether it be Apple or Samsung, there is never "just enough" profits to be earned. 500 million is still 500 million dosen't matter if you only made 10 bucks last year or 10 billion.

    As always I do not support nor condem I merely speak the truth.
     
  21. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    #21
    Why should tap to zoom be a standard?

    Just because it's the best way to do something doesn't mean it should be given away for free. Something being popular, similarly, doesn't make it suddenly a defacto standard in terms of patents and why should it? That would create a perverse incentive to try to make sure your ideas aren't too good and don't get too popular.
     
  22. macrumors G5

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #22
    Oh goodie another MR thread that will turn into 500+ posts about how apple is evil an a big bully. :rolleyes:
     
  23. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    #23
    I am sure its like 2% or 5% not a HUGE % but a truck load of cash still when dealing with 2.5 billion
     
  24. macrumors 68040

    MonkeySee....

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    #24
    You could be Googles next lawyer :D
     
  25. macrumors 68030

    ChrisTX

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2009
    Location:
    Texas
    #25
    And I agree with that 100%, but Apple seems to suggest that consumers may be confused by Samsungs offerings and buy their product on accident thinking they purchased an Apple one instead. However I can't imagine anyone is dumb enough to accidentally buy a Galaxy Tab by mistake thinking they were purchasing an iPad.
     

Share This Page