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

[samcraig]

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.

Strawman - I never said that the iPhone didn't have any R&D. I never said anything about Apple stealing.

Further - having worked in the industry back before the iPhone was brought to market - I think I have pretty keen insight to the subject.

If you want to discuss Apple, other Companies and their R&D , contributions, etc - I'm happy to further the discussion. But I'm not going to respond to strawman arguments that are proposed. Thanks

 

[Jibbajabba]

>> customers would shell out $32 to $102 for each feature <<

Being "Slide to Unlock" one of them ? Who did he ask? People moan about $1.99 apps and the majority would pay that money for a software feature ?

Sorry, doubt that .. Samsung or Apple, I call shenanigans

 

[bawbac]

Glad my home is Samsung free except for Samsung components inside of my Apple products. Sort of ironic isn't it?

Have you analyzed all your household electronic components, including what's in your car?
You'd be surprised how in trenched Samsung is in your electronics.

 

[Dontazemebro]

This is getting more and more embarrassing for Apple as it continues. At this point they just sound like sore losers. Makes me kind of wish I never saw any of these documents at all.

Not a good look Apple .... Not a good look at all.

 

[keterboy]

How much will you get if Apple wins?

Just satisfaction for my ego I swear.

 

[jasonbogen]

Strawman - I never said that the iPhone didn't have any R&D. I never said anything about Apple stealing.

Further - having worked in the industry back before the iPhone was brought to market - I think I have pretty keen insight to the subject.

If you want to discuss Apple, other Companies and their R&D , contributions, etc - I'm happy to further the discussion. But I'm not going to respond to strawman arguments that are proposed. Thanks

So I guess I misunderstood you when you said

"Apple doesn't spend an iota of R&D compared to almost any of the other companies that make cell phones."

Strawman? LOL Overused word in online discussions in lieu of accepting that you may have been wrong on a point. Just keep in mind that before the iPhone was brought to market, there was nothing that did smartphone the way Apple did. Since then, it is how every smartphone is designed. Most tried to avoid ripping Apple off directly, Samsung decided to risk the legal penalty figuring it would be worth it. Even at $2B, they were probably right. This law suit is essentially just them negotiating their R&D costs at this point.

Apparently I had you pegged as far as your niche and we don't have to discuss it any more but, I am saying the cell phone engineering part is a drop in the bucket where smart phones are concerned. It's about the platform and that is what this suit is about.

 

[portlandia]

So basically, Apple is suing Samsung for unearned profits NOT from what phones they weren't able to sell but what phones they WOULD NOT be able to sell IN THE FUTURE. As in 100 years down the line. Really, Apple? I understand that you might lose sales and profits but saying that you failed to monopolize the market in 2,5,10, or 50 years IS NOT Samsung's fault.

 

[samcraig]

So I guess I misunderstood you when you said

"Apple doesn't spend an iota of R&D compared to almost any of the other companies that make cell phones."

Strawman? LOL Overused word in online discussions in lieu of accepting that you may have been wrong on a point. Just keep in mind that before the iPhone was brought to market, there was nothing that did smartphone the way Apple did. Since then, it is how every smartphone is designed. Most tried to avoid ripping Apple off directly, Samsung decided to risk the legal penalty figuring it would be worth it. Even at $2B, they were probably right. This law suit is essentially just them negotiating their R&D costs at this point.

Apparently I had you pegged as far as your niche and we don't have to discuss it any more but, I am saying the cell phone engineering part is a drop in the bucket where smart phones are concerned. It's about the platform and that is what this suit is about.

LOL - nothing pegged. I'm not remotely in engineering.

And I said compared to its competition, Apple barely spent a dime. We're talking about billions to build the cell phone industry to what it was before Apple entered into it. And (I don't have the source, but KDarling did) - Apple spend about $150M developing the iPhone. Again - a drop in the bucket. Not that Apple should be denied the IMPACT they had on the industry. I never suggested otherwise.

And no - this lawsuit isn't about R&D costs.

 

[bobenhaus]

[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]


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.

Image​

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

alot of web sites are starting to talk about Apple is just being greedy and trying to snuff out competition. Not good for Apple

 

[ghost of jobs]

There's several apps which let you view the space in front of you while u txt so u can walk and see the path... Nothing new...

So why have Apple applied for a patent for this idea...

In 2yrs time.. Apple will be sueing anyone who incorporated this idea in their OS..

Anyone care to comment on how screwed up the patent system is....

Just cos u patent something doesn't mean you invented it...

 

[brewcitywi]

apple v samsung

Samsung should have licensed their devices with Apple when they were given opportunities to do so. You can't blame Apple for filing these lawsuits, as tedious as they've become. I believe that Samsung definitely deserves a large series of judgments against them at some point in time, in addition to last year's decision. However, once that definitive judgment occurs, it's time for Apple to bury the legal card and focus on innovation.

I know it's seen as bad marketing to mention a competitor in your ads when you're #1, but there has to be room for some anti-Samsung ads somewhere!

 

[cmwade77]

Samsung should have licensed their devices with Apple when they were given opportunities to do so. You can't blame Apple for filing these lawsuits, as tedious as they've become. I believe that Samsung definitely deserves a large series of judgments against them at some point in time, in addition to last year's decision. However, once that definitive judgment occurs, it's time for Apple to bury the legal card and focus on innovation.

I know it's seen as bad marketing to mention a competitor in your ads when you're #1, but there has to be room for some anti-Samsung ads somewhere!

I can when most of the patents in question shouldn't have been allowed in the first place....basically we are back to patenting a square device with round corners again. Many of these features that are in question are so basic that they should never have been allowed to be patented in the first place.

I'm not saying that Apple shouldn't be able to protect truly innovative features, but something like slide to unlock is so basic and obvious that it should not be able to be patented.

 

[samcraig]

I can when most of the patents in question shouldn't have been allowed in the first place....basically we are back to patenting a square device with round corners again. Many of these features that are in question are so basic that they should never have been allowed to be patented in the first place.

I'm not saying that Apple shouldn't be able to protect truly innovative features, but something like slide to unlock is so basic and obvious that it should not be able to be patented.

And as been mentioned, has been thrown out in international courtrooms.

 

[eddieaus]

after seeing the prices of the new Galaxy S5 and Galaxy Note Pro, i don't care about Samsung anymore. Samsung Galaxy used to be the cheaper alternative, now they mean nothing to me.

 

[brewcitywi]

yes

I can when most of the patents in question shouldn't have been allowed in the first place....basically we are back to patenting a square device with round corners again. Many of these features that are in question are so basic that they should never have been allowed to be patented in the first place.

I'm not saying that Apple shouldn't be able to protect truly innovative features, but something like slide to unlock is so basic and obvious that it should not be able to be patented.

Yes, I can see that patents are out of control. You're probably right about the fact that these patent cases should focus on the innovative patents, not things like the shape of the device.

 

[larrybeo]

Patent Troll Company

We knew it was a question of when and not if Apple would become a patent trolling company, but who knew it would start so soon?

 

[subsonix]

We knew it was a question of when and not if Apple would become a patent trolling company, but who knew it would start so soon?

It looks like slide-to-unlock is a hook they hang their claims on, when in fact it's quite evident just by casual observation of the first Galaxy that a lot is lifted from iPhone. Samsung has done this a lot. Look for someone successful in the market, clone and bring out your own similar model, by look and name. They for example also had obvious Razr and Blackberry (RIM sued) look a likes, and more recently they have been sued by Dyson for doing obvious aping. It's just a pathetic practice and Apple is completely in the right here imho.

 

[tevion5]

Nobody cares and neither does Apple.

I think his emphasis was on the irony of Samsung's hardware used in Apple products. I think you missed the point of his statement. Sounds quite neautral and aware to me.

 

[subsonix]

I think his emphasis was on the irony of Samsung's hardware used in Apple products. I think you missed the point of his statement. Sounds quite neautral and aware to me.

Apple is a Samsung customer and buys lots of parts that is used in their products, how is that ironic, and how does it justify that Samsung's consumer electronics branch then goes on and takes Apple IP and uses it in their own products?

 

[samcraig]

Apple is a Samsung customer and buys lots of parts that is used in their products, how is that ironic, and how does it justify that Samsung's consumer electronics branch then goes on and takes Apple IP and uses it in their own products?

Except you're assuming they simply "took" Apple's IP.

For one - if Samsung believed that Apple's patent claim for slide to unlock was not valid, then they do have a right to use their own code and version and let the courts decide.

And on the items of universal search, background syncing, quick links, automatic word correction - these are all things that have been done before and really can vary quite a bit when it comes to coding. Again - Samsung on a high level might have said we want text linking - but did not believe Apple's patent was either valid - or more likely - theirs was implemented differently enough to not be in violation.

 

[subsonix]

Except you're assuming they simply "took" Apple's IP.

That's for the court to decide.

 

[samcraig]

That's for the court to decide.

Apparently it's also for the court of public opinion since that's what you stated.

 

[subsonix]

Apparently it's also for the court of public opinion since that's what you stated.

Did I? I have an opinion, and I express it, just like you.

 

[samcraig]

Did I? I have an opinion, and I express it, just like you.

Look - I agree it's for the courts to decide. And no one here is getting the full story, all the evidence, etc

Doesn't seem to stop some (not saying you) from issuing a "verdict" either way, now does it?

 

[tevion5]

Apple is a Samsung customer and buys lots of parts that is used in their products, how is that ironic, and how does it justify that Samsung's consumer electronics branch then goes on and takes Apple IP and uses it in their own products?

The irony is in Apple die hards who openly despise samsung and then buy apple products that depend on Samsung's hardware. That is irony if there was any.