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.
Apple Calls in Experts to Explain Why Samsung Owes $2B in Damages
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple should buy them keep them separate as their Android arm inject their hoards of cash into advertising and selling the HTC brand, they are also like the Apple of the Android world, they could then carry on as normal with iOS and Apple stuff, think you could have the best of both worlds
...You asked why they weren't suing other companies. I gave the reason. Samsung didn't like Apple's terms (none of us know what those terms are). They refused to agree and are in court. I have no idea what your getting at here.
----------
You haven't seen anything from nadella lol get real
I know the current products (some of which I really like) are from the Ballmer era. It was too little too late and it was HIS fault. His corporate structure was horrible. He pitted employees against each other and fostered resentment between his own employees. When the whole world was taken back in awe by the iPhone all he could do was slam it and say no one will want one and Apple doesn't know what they are doing. Ballmer completely missed the mobile revolution. Under his watch microsoft fell apart.
Please don't insult George Foreman by comparing him to Samsung. This is more likely Samsung will look like after this trial
Attachments
Glad my home is Samsung free except for Samsung components inside of my Apple products. Sort of ironic isn't it?
Samsung have been paid for these components!
Just like you pay on the shop for components you need to create something. If you are going to build something, you are gonna need to buy few things and not just create them yourself. Let's say you wanna build robot.... surely you will end up buying lot of stuff for it. But how the heck do you want these suppliers you pad for, to be credited the Robot that you build? You have paid them! And who would really give a rats a>>> where did you buy some of the components used inside your robot? It could have been any shop but you choosed this particular one because you thought price was right for you. They just sell you stuff! But then again, I don't think you are that naive to not understand this.
For better or worse, that will definitely have a chilling effect on the industry as a whole.
I have used one (Galaxy S2) for 8 months before I through it on eBay and my flatmate have the galaxy S4! And no, IMO they are not as good as you are making it to be. Endless customization? You are absolutely right, it does... though 80% of it I would probably never bother with. It was funny.... just 2 days ago me and my friend were in town and my mate with S4 wanted to take some photos of himself with the big wheel on the background! The camera was so sluggish and it did force close itself 4 times before we were able to take some shots! He says that the phone sometime freeze's up so then he does shut the phone off after it being extremity hot and then when is ON the battery is almost dead! You know...things like that remind me why I use an iPhone.
Glad my home is Samsung free except for Samsung components inside of my Apple products. Sort of ironic isn't it?
And to top it all off, it's ironic that Samsung components in Macs perform better than anything else.
Largely, Samsung retina displays are image-retention free (compared to LG), and Samsung SM0256F 256GB PCIe SSDs are 150MB/s faster than the SanDisk SD0256F 256GB PCIe SSDs.
So the gist is that I hate Samsung's ethics, but I want their components. Such paradox :/
So because you dont agree with someone elses opinion, they are automatically a "paid shill"
Yes, I have seen the Galaxy S5 reviews. They all seem to disagree with you "junk" analysis.
Techradar - 4.5/5
Trused Review - 9/10
Stuff - 5/5
Pocket-lint - 4.5/5
Then you need to watch the video again and listen to what they say, watch it from 3:45.
And no, as I said, with the iPhone you press the power button to lock it, a feature that has existed for years and years with phones. It is so generic it has no merit in the argument.
The goal posts are being moved an awful lot in this thread, somehow Samsung has copied Apple despite it having a slide to unlock feature that the graphics of do not copy iOS.
Yet this is what your arguments are based on? But Apple has not copied/ stolen the idea from pre-existing devices way before the iPhone was launched and that is somehow different.
Apple was in no way the first to implement slide to unlock. It is a fact, it is a fact used in other courts around the world in Apples lawsuits that resulted in them losing those cases.
You can try to dress it up as much as you want, claim patents are different in other country's, claim it is implemented differently, fact is Apple has no right to have a patent for the slide to unlock feature and other courts have found no case for this patent in lawsuits, it has no right to sue it's biggest competitor for an utterly stupid amount of money just to gain market share due to that.
Enough people on here claim Apple makes incremental tiny updates to it's iPhone every year, if competition like Samsung didn't exist that would most likely be every three years knowing Apple!
I think the government should just make all electronic devices that are not Apple illegal (or makers of those devices should have to pay 150% of their profits to Apple).
If anything was not invented by Apple, it's because Jony Ive went back in time and created it anyway so it is still Apple's, because Apple invented Jony Ive. Apple is the horizontal and creator of all things. Nobody but Apple has the ability to invent anything. Apple invented the wheel, fire, Jesus, and love.
/s
Apple/Samsung Jurors Admit They Finished Quickly By Ignoring Prior Art & Other Key Factors
**** facts.
The opportunity cost of losing a customer to Samsung, that would otherwise go through 2-3 upgrade cycles, is the largest cost by far, since it captures the full margin of the higher cost and profit iPhone(s), not merely a license fee for stolen IP on the offending devices.
Rocketman
Rocketman
He should return the phone. There's clearly an issue. I've had an S4 Since September now and not once has the camera locked up on me. It opens up quickly and I'm able to take great pictures. Every. Single. Day. On average, I've taken 20-30 picture every single day since I've bought the phone.
I've also had no heat issues. Again - tell your flatmate he has a bum phone and get it swapped out.
Survey was not believable in previous attempts
I wonder if Samsung is able to bring up the previous legal failure of this man's surveys to the jury.
This is the same Hauser whose survey methods were dissed previously by both Judge Koh and appellate court judges, when they were used in failed attempts by Apple to get a sales ban on Samsung phones.
Hauser's survey had some rather incredible results, such as finding that customers were willing to pay up to $422 EXTRA for features like bounceback and tap-to-recenter. (If so, perhaps Apple should offer an iPhone for $422 less without them, as someone else suggested.)
Embarassingly, the appellate judges also noted that Hauser had used survey methods which biased how people answer... methods which Hauser himself had warned against being used, in a white paper he had written years earlier (!).
--
This is the primary evidence that Apple is using to justify wanting $2 billion for their patents.
You can read more about his surveys, and the previous injunction denial, at Foss Patents here.
.
I wonder if Samsung is able to bring up the previous legal failure of this man's surveys to the jury.
This is the same Hauser whose survey methods were dissed previously by both Judge Koh and appellate court judges, when they were used in failed attempts by Apple to get a sales ban on Samsung phones.
Hauser's survey had some rather incredible results, such as finding that customers were willing to pay up to $422 EXTRA for features like bounceback and tap-to-recenter. (If so, perhaps Apple should offer an iPhone for $422 less without them, as someone else suggested.)
Embarassingly, the appellate judges also noted that Hauser had used survey methods which biased how people answer... methods which Hauser himself had warned against being used, in a white paper he had written years earlier (!).
--
This is the primary evidence that Apple is using to justify wanting $2 billion for their patents.
You can read more about his surveys, and the previous injunction denial, at Foss Patents here.
.
Last edited:
Indeed.
I'm not sure if you're referring to my posts. But I would love to know how many people (here) would actually purchase some of the OS functions as IAP that he found to be of value between $32-100+ each.
Even more importantly, companies like Apple pay for the R&D and takes the risk on new product design then once that sells Samsung copies it. As was pointed out in the article, in this case they did it at a time when so many were buying their first smart phone. I'm sure they knew there would be a legal cost for this and probably budgeted that in in lieu of their own R&D figuring it would be worth it.
People are so uneducated about things like business law, marketing, statistics and software/hardware development that they just think it is a frivolous suit and blindly choose whichever side they are loyal to. Not surprising, but still sometimes frustrating. They should try to open their minds and make an attempt to comprehend what's going on and why or just stay out of the discussion. lol
As for the company that reportedly used the slide to unlock, their patent only covered screens smaller than any iPhone and nobody even knew it existed until last week. Point is, Apple didn't steal their patent and certainly didn't benefit from that feature being proven in the marketplace. Apple wasn't first with the smartphone, but their R&D created a product that revolutionized the market. People didn't just all of a sudden buy it because it was Apple. They bought it because it was an amazingly usable, integrated, multifunctional product. Everyone lined up to copy, but at least others tried their own designs Samsung, as they have done to many other companies before blatantly ripped off the iPhone to capitalize on Apple's designs and cause confusion in the marketplace. It worked. Not only did they get Apple's R&D for free, but they took a large portion of market share away from them. Now Apple wants to make sure they pay for it.
The bias is strong in this post.
Apple has repeatedly violated other patents and have been called to task on it. Apple doesn't spend an iota of R&D compared to almost any of the other companies that make cell phones. They also have contributed to next to none (is it none, KDarling?) FRAND patents. Apple was only able to successfully the iPhone because of the millions/billions of R&D and hours spent by their competition.
Your post is pretty ironic.
You think the iPhone is a result of no R&D and only stealing from the competition? SMH...this is just absurd. You sound like an electronics engineer who thinks that designing the communications chips and screens are the only thing that is R&D'd.
Also, you think that I am saying that Apple hasn't done anything wrong? The principals I am talking about should apply to Apple as well, but they aren't the ones capturing market share by trying to trick consumers into thinking their product is the same as someone else's. Their R&D revolves around creating differentiation and creating products that work better and work seamlessly together.
What does their contribution to FRAND patents have to do with this case?
Nothing, but it does go toward explaining why you are so biased against Apple instead of understanding more than whatever your niche is. Thanks for being a perfect example of what I am talking about.