Apple and Samsung Negotiating Agreement to Settle Patent Disputes Out of Court

[Oletros]

Why?

It was massively beneficial for Samsung to steal. What if the penalty for stealing thousand dollar rolex's was 10 cents? Part of the point of punishment is to discourage the bad behavior.

For example I know a couple that was dealing insane amounts of weed. They were flying to Colorado and bringing it back to Florida. They were making over 200K a year working 2 days a week. The problem is they got busted, went to jail for several years, and every literally every dime they made got taken.

Now if I ask them if they'll ever do it again they both say no. Why? Because the crime wasn't worth the punishment.

The point I'm making is that the value that Samsung created by stealing was way more than any punishment they were going to get. As a result of this they basically said "f it, who cares." And like I said I think that even 20B may have still been too low. They may have still not worried about it because the value created may have still been well worth the penalty. A fair system can't function that way.

Are you really comparing patent infringement to those delicts? Are you comparing patent infringement to stealing?

Now I know why do you think your argument is not ridiculous

 

[Michael Scrip]

Stop thinking small time. What about all the rest of the electrical equipment that runs these offices. Huge mainframe computers used to store information in the cloud. The refrigeration units to keep those computers cool. Even the manufacturing plants that use robots and cutting machines to make Apple product cost money in electricity. All the thousands of computers that are operational on a daily basis adds up.
It takes more than 4 light bulbs to run a mainframe computer and keep it cool at the same time.

Yes... Apple has expenses to cover. All companies do. But Apple is obviously managing just fine.

Apple makes somewhere in the ballpark of $329,000 in revenue EVERY MINUTE.

After all their bills are paid... what remains is their profit.

Apple makes roughly $71,000 in profit EVERY MINUTE... or over $4.2 million EVERY HOUR.

Clearly Apple is able to pay for electricity, refrigeration and other expenses... and still make money.

In short... Apple is more than capable of running a mainframe computer and keep it cool.

 

[Gary03mw]

Are you really comparing patent infringement to those delicts? Are you comparing patent infringement to stealing?

Now I know why do you think your argument is not ridiculous

1. You miss the point. It's not how we define stealing. The point is whether or not the punishment fits the crime. It's that Samsung shouldn't look at the penalty they are going to receive and then say well even if/when we have to pay up its still well worth our while to do this.


2. If you have a point then make one. Sarcastically ridiculing my common sense isn't really productive.

 

[SmoMo]

It takes more than 4 light bulbs to run a mainframe computer and keep it cool at the same time.

Hey lady, you are totally tripping. I know you probably feel like you are a magic space man but you've eaten too much of the LSD and you need to find a big comfy bean-bag, nestle yourself in nice and tight, and wait a few hours for the trip to wind down.

When you come round you'll realise how crazy your idea really is, that lightbulbs will run a mainframe computer, AND keep it cool at the same time!

----------

This is the reason the USA has the biggest ration of lawyers in the world. 1:320 whereas Japan has about 1:5,000.

I thought that was just because USA lawyers are really dumb, and you need a lot of them even for simple litigation.
The Japanese lawyers, wow man, they're descended from the Ninja family, just one single Japanese lawyer can defeat over 15 USA lawyers, hence the rationing.

 

[fredaroony]

he would have won these cases hands down.

Steve Jobs was a lawyer now?

 

[Trapezoid]

700k

eta: Monday morning, a little more than two months after the much-lusted-after gadget went on sale, Apple said in a brief press release that it had sold its 1 millionth iPhone.

http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-1-million-iphones-sold/

Just how many hands the iPhone actually is in at this point is a little unclear, Apple's ballyhooing of 1 million sold notwithstanding. If Apple sold 270,000 or so in the waning hours of June, as it claimed, and then 220,000 in July, as market research iSuppli reported last week, that's 490,000 units. Which means the company would have needed a sales surge of more than a half-million iPhones in the six weeks or so since August 1.

Oops sorry I read wrong.

 

[groovyd]

Steve Jobs was a lawyer now?

he decided to pay the lawyer or not and who that lawyer would be.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Apple has 83,000 employees, assuming 4 light bulbs per person

I think you are massively underestimating light bulbs per person...

 

[kdarling]

Now it would make sense if both companies had essential patents that both wanted, and then made a deal.

That's a good question about ETSI FRAND cross licensing being a required payment option. I.e. does it only include related essential patents? I think that it does, although the wording isn't clear.

However, it is also documented that it was common for licensees to offer up ANY kind of IP to lower their rates, if they didn't have any essential radio ones. E.g. they might license manufacturing patents, display innovations, case designs, UI ideas, you name it.

Basically, it was so common to cross license IP in order to get rates down, that according to court docs, Samsung and Motorola had no set cash rate to offer Apple. So they had to wing it.

If you're really interested, there's some neat info on FRAND patents and licensing in this EU commissioned report from 2011... Study on the Interplay between Standards and Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) - (200 page PDF)

 

[captain kaos]

So that was a waste of time for all concerned then. Plus made the lawyers a lot of money.

 

[Cod3rror]

I hope Samsung licences the bounce-back effect from Apple.

----------

Samsung strategy working perfectly:

1. Copy
2. Defend
3. Appeal
4. Delay
5. Establish
6. Profit
7. Grow
8. Legitimize
9. Settle
10. Win

Brilliant.

Can't deny it's a brilliant strategy.

 

[Oletros]

1. You miss the point. It's not how we define stealing. The point is whether or not the punishment fits the crime. It's that Samsung shouldn't look at the penalty they are going to receive and then say well even if/when we have to pay up its still well worth our while to do this.


2. If you have a point then make one. Sarcastically ridiculing my common sense isn't really productive.

If you think the patent infringement is worth more than $20 billion the last thing I would call the claim is common sense, perhaps not knowing what the IP cases are about would be a better definition

 

[JayMarcel]

I guess its a win-win situation for both companies. Infact the real winners are the customers, its good both will now focus on making things better for us rather than fighting eachother

 

[zipa]

In short... Apple is more than capable of running a mainframe computer and keep it cool.

Except that I don't think that they are running any mainframes.

 

[JayMarcel]

• I guess its a win-win situation for both companies. Infact the real winners are the customers, its good both will now focus on making things better for us rather than fighting eachother

 

[draugminaion]

Why?

It was massively beneficial for Samsung to steal. What if the penalty for stealing thousand dollar rolex's was 10 cents? Part of the point of punishment is to discourage the bad behavior.

For example I know a couple that was dealing insane amounts of weed. They were flying to Colorado and bringing it back to Florida. They were making over 200K a year working 2 days a week. The problem is they got busted, went to jail for several years, and every literally every dime they made got taken.

Now if I ask them if they'll ever do it again they both say no. Why? Because the crime wasn't worth the punishment.

The point I'm making is that the value that Samsung created by stealing was way more than any punishment they were going to get. As a result of this they basically said "f it, who cares." And like I said I think that even 20B may have still been too low. They may have still not worried about it because the value created may have still been well worth the penalty. A fair system can't function that way.

Exactly.
Maybe paying $1B sometime in the future is cheap if it gets your brand in the top 2 for premium smartphones.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Except that I don't think that they are running any mainframes.

Hey! I didn't mention mainframes... someone else did!

 

[draugminaion]

• I guess its a win-win situation for both companies. Infact the real winners are the customers, its good both will now focus on making things better for us rather than fighting eachother

Why would Apple bother spending 4 years making things better for us if Samsung can get away with selling a knockoff 4 months later?

 

[Oletros]

Why would Apple bother spending 4 years making things better for us if Samsung can get away with selling a knockoff 4 months later?

What knockoff?

 

[draugminaion]

What knockoff?

Doesn't matter if it actually is a knockoff.

If Apple thinks it is ( and for the handful of patents that Apple was able to litigate 2 juries mostly agreed ) their incentive for developing new stuff will be reduced.

This incentive is what patents are supposed to be for.

This is how it is supposed to work:

An innovator invests in researching and developing something new.
The innovator writes this down, and applies for a patent.

If it is good enough the patent is granted.
This means the innovator gets an limited time exclusive right to do the things covered by the patent.
In exchange for being deprived of the right to do the things detailed in the patent the rest of the world gets to use it for free after the patent expires.

The state will enforce this right like it enforces real property rights.

The exclusive right means the innovator can license the right to use it to others for a reasonable or unreasonable terms or fees, whatever it feels like, or keep it for itself. That is what 'exclusive right' means.

This is how it actually worked:

Apple was granted patents, Apple (and 2 juries) thought Samsung was trespassing on Apple's exclusive rights from these patents.

But the state will not or cannot do anything to enforce that exclusive right.

All Apple can get is a license fee that a jury (specially selected to be without any relevant expertise) thinks reasonable.

So.

If this is all Apple can expect for a few years of R&D would they think it is worth it? Should they?

 

[Tech198]

This could only lead to more war between them

Why do people go to court ? judges have experience with settling court cases and may see the differences from both sides to come to an lever agreement..

The only reason for settle out of court would be cost... (and maybe in this case, Apple wants to win more in their favor)

 

[Trapezoid]

So samsungs attorney called apple jihadists and settlement talks are becoming difficult. Man, even Samsung lawyers are idiots.

 

[TallManNY]

Last I checked, Samsung has paid Apple exactly $0 from the billion dollar verdicts. As has been noted, Samsung has a history of appealing verdicts until they become moot. One could easily argue Apple wasted their time since their labors have only produced court victories with no tangible financial benefits.

OT. I hope all this patent litigation goes away. Maybe an ancillary benefit will be Patent Trolls (non-practicing entities) will not find the litigation route as beneficial as it has been in the past.

----------



The point was never acknowledgement. The point was to make infringement have punitive consequences. If you infringe, you will pay. Only fanboys, both Apple's and Samsung's, really care about "acknowledgement"; which only serves to fuel flamewars.

Maybe you are right. But I know that on a initial basis Apple has won at least one billion dollar judgment. And I think they've won others. Sure you can appeal, but that doesn't mean the judgement gets reduced if you lose the appeal. If Apple collects on that billion judgment, I think it will pay for this litigation, even the global litigation.

It isn't a waste of time though, as Apple has to do this as Samsung will violate patents. It is part of their model and it is part of their corporate culture. They are super powerful in Korea, nearly above the law there. So the executives are used to pushing all the way up against the limits of legality.

I suspect the settlement that Apple is negotiating with Samsung will either get Apple licensing revenue or at least keep Samsung from using its real trump card, which is its production capacity of components that Apple still needs in huge numbers.

----------

And vice versa.

Personally, I think this sounds great. Past due. Hopefully, they can not only settle but rebuild the relationship so that great Samsung components can again be found where applicable in Apple products. For all this "Die Samsung Die" sentiment for years now, go over into the threads where there are screens made by Samsung and others or SSD drives, etc and there are many posts by people "hoping to get the Samsung one." Why? Because that generally the best variant within Apple products.

Did Samsung do wrong? Yes. Does Apple do wrong? Yes. That last U.S. court decision found both at fault. I bet if there was a similar battle in Samsung's home country, their courts might see things differently. I bet if there was a mirror SamsungRumors.com website heavily populated by South Koreans, their sentiment of Samsung vs. Apple would be very different too.

In the end, none of these companies can overly win such cases. Ultimately, they have to settle. Else, the infringers who mostly get away with it will keep infringing. Patent law is not world law. Patent punishments are not world-wide punishments. Even a complete victory for Apple would not result in a punishment that would kill the copying (which would basically involve the world refusing the sale of the infringing products). Fines are like slaps on the wrist to these companies. They might work but they might not. They can sting a little but not enough.

You just equated a 100 million fine with a 100 thousand dollar fine (which was a fine on many many more products sold in the US) and then said "both at fault". The degree of fault is actually relevant.

But both fines are failures of the judicial system. Apple's fine won't pay for the legal fees Samsung incurred during a couple of days. And Samsung's fine will be nicely covered by the profit from a month of sales. Both are meaningless as far as deterring future bad acts.

 

[Gary03mw]

If you think the patent infringement is worth more than $20 billion the last thing I would call the claim is common sense, perhaps not knowing what the IP cases are about would be a better definition

What I think is common sense is that the punishment should fit the crime. My point, and what should be common sense, is that a punishment of 1B in a scenario where the profits are in the 10's of billions isn't going to stop the crime. How is that hard to comprehend?

Exactly.
Maybe paying $1B sometime in the future is cheap if it gets your brand in the top 2 for premium smartphones.

Thank you

 

[Oletros]

What I think is common sense is that the punishment should fit the crime. My point, and what should be common sense, is that a punishment of 1B in a scenario where the profits are in the 10's of billions isn't going to stop the crime. How is that hard to comprehend?

What you don't understand is that the benefits from this "crime" are not 10's of billions, the ****ing benefits are the damages awarded.

So yes, they have paid what they have done and your common sense is just lack of knowledge

----------

And I think they've won others.

No, they don't have won anything more

Sure you can appeal, but that doesn't mean the judgement gets reduced if you lose the appeal

Why not?

I suspect the settlement that Apple is negotiating with Samsung will either get Apple licensing revenue or at least keep Samsung from using its real trump card, which is its production capacity of components that Apple still needs in huge numbers.

And why will Samsung agree to that?