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.
Jury Finds Both Apple and Samsung Guilty of Patent Infringement, Samsung to Pay $119.6 Million, Apple to Pay $158,400
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I bet this verdict isn't big enough to put Samsung completely out of business for good...I wish it had been, though!
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Exactly. And then some.
In this kind of thing, the lawyers are who win. Everybody else loses… including us. How do we lose? We lose by paying the profits that pay the lawyers to fight it out through all the discovery & two trials that accomplished what? We also lose by one company being mad at the other so we end up with components and screens that are generally inferior to what they would be if both companies were still working as closely together.
For $120M "win" (that Samsung will probably never actually pay), think back how much has been done, wasted, lost, etc. It reminds me of one of the big Wall Street banks getting fined $100M dollars about 10 years ago for some wrongful act on the public. It seemed like a huge slap in the face until it came out that the same company spent about that much on basic office supplies like paper clips in ONE MONTH.
Next year or two, Samsung might sue Apple for "copying" bigger screens and win this chump change right back. What? Can't patent bigger screen phones but can patent pinch-to-zoom?
$119 Million + $890 Million from last trial still to be paid. If nothing else at least Google was forced to admit on the record paying Samsung's bills.
1 Billion is quite a few pairs of Google Glass Sergey.
119 million is a slap on the wrist to Samsung who rakes in billions in profit each quarter.
So you want less competition by putting Samsung out of business? That wouldn't do the industry any good. While Samsung has certainly ridden some of its success from Apple, it has also done some good, such as helping to popularize big screens in mobile phones, something many of us will benefit from in the iPhone 6 and beyond.
Last edited:
Don't forget the various chips and displays you use on a daily basis be it in tv's, blu-ray players, vehicles, washer machines, ect. Just because it doesn't say Samsung doesn't mean that a Samsung component is not inside it. One way or another your giving money to Samsung and you have no choice but to. What are you going to do? Ask the manufacture if a product is Samsung free?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
And he should crack open just about any Apple device he has. Odds are high he'll find something(s) made from Samsung inside. There's threads even on this site where people are hoping they "got the one with a Samsung screen" in spite of all of this griping about those "evil thieves". No questioning they did build upon ideas from Apple but they also know how to make some great technology and I hope Apple continues to use them for the guts of Apple hardware… hopefully even patching things up so they can do more together.
That is a ridiculous statement. Do you think all the engineers have stopped working whilst the trial was ongoing? Do you honestly believe that Apple expects to ever live off the courts? Come on
Exactly. And then some.
In this kind of thing, the lawyers are who win. Everybody else loses including us. How do we lose? We lose by paying the profits that pay the lawyers to fight it out through all the discovery & two trials that accomplished what? We also lose by one company being mad at the other so we end up with components and screens that are generally inferior to what they would be if both companies were still working as closely together.
For $120M "win" (that Samsung will probably never actually pay), think back how much has been done, wasted, lost, etc. It reminds me of one of the big Wall Street banks getting fined $100M dollars about 10 years ago for some wrongful act on the public. It seemed like a huge slap in the face until it came out that the same company spent about that much on basic office supplies like paper clips in ONE MONTH.
Next year or two, Samsung might sue Apple for "copying" bigger screens and win this chump change right back. What? Can't patent bigger screen phones but can patent pinch-to-zoom?
We are not paying for the lawyers, I find it ironic how in one paragraph you say this but in another explain how this isn't much to a big company, you completely contradicted your self.
Second the part of Samsung that makes components is separate from the part that makes phones.
The reason this is done is not for money but to keep it from happening again.
You know. People might laugh at a comment like this, or just blow it of. The wife and I purchased a new dishwasher last weekend. The sales person kept wanting to sell us a Samsung unit. I swear on my Father's Grave the entire pitch was showing us all the "Whirlpool Like features" in the Samsung.
Just like how they sold "smartphones" before the iPhone?
Yep and the galaxy gear will make a 180 after the iWatch is revealed.
Same can be said about smart phones, Samsung was selling them prior to the release of the iPhone.
The court cases are about the design, feel, how it works, not apple's ownership of the the smartphone brand. Samsung will want to copy whatever it is the apple does unique in their next products.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
We pay in every way I said.
Samsung is one whole conglomerate. Yes there are separate facilities that make different things but that doesn't make one part the "good Samsung" and the other part "bad Samsung". I own a lot of Apple computing hardware and several other things in my home by Samsung. Both companies make great, highly-rated products. On those Apple products, I doubt I could crack any of them open and not find something made by Samsung in there. So even Apple can appreciate Samsung quality and/or ability to produce.
So mission accomplished? If you think that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
More seriously though, you are right about that last part. But I have 0% confidence that that will be the result. How much were Samsung's sales of their Apple-like hardware since this started. Vs. $120M fine. Vs. $1B? Chump change.
How often do the Wall Street banks get fined for misbehavior? Does it ever stop misbehavior? Chase just got fined something like $13B dollars: http://www.occupy.com/article/jpmorgan-chase-fined-historic-13-billion-mortgage-fraud A few months later, their CEO got a huge raise: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-24/dimon-gets-74-percent-raise-after-billions-in-fines
Is this comment a joke? Samsung spent $4.3 billion in 2012 just in advertising alone. Then they went crazy mad and spent 14 billion in 2013. I'm no math wizard but you do realize that $1 minus $1 billion is $999,999,999 million. If you multiply that by 14 you have 13,999,999,986. Then subtract what Samsung owns you still have $13,880,399,986.
When you factor in the rest of the money Samsung has in the bank $120 million is not even peanuts to Samsung.
So what happens when Apple copies other vendors like Android notifications or WebOS task control? Or does it only work one way?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Here it only works one way.
Then about 2 years later, it's remembered as Apple inventing everything good. Show any evidence to the contrary and you'll be shouted down and called a troll… or the subject will be changed (like "but who made the most profit on any single phone model?" and similar).
You know. People might laugh at a comment like this, or just blow it of. The wife and I purchased a new dishwasher last weekend. The sales person kept wanting to sell us a Samsung unit. I swear on my Father's Grave the entire pitch was showing us all the "Whirlpool Like features" in the Samsung.
Just be very glad you didn't buy the Samsung dishwasher. Utter junk. I made that mistake. Never again.
The way it works is those companies have to sue Apple first. In order to sue, there would need to be a patent violation. If Apple did indeed violate a patent, you can count on them being sued.