Here - enjoy some deeper reading. As if Apple didn't pay for "expert" witnesses either?
The important thing here isn't that they are paid, but their expertise, which make your scare quotes around "expert" peculiar.
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.
Samsung Expert Says It Only Owes Apple $40 Million in Patent Case, Not $2 Billion
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The important thing here isn't that they are paid, but their expertise, which make your scare quotes around "expert" peculiar.
This case is about a few patents not about rewarding Apple for how magical the iPhone was in 2007.
----------
Based on the research done by the other so called experts hired by Apple I disagree.
Research is what professors do. Luckily there is also the real experts of the internet to make sure they know what they are doing. This is sarcasm.
You have no idea what I do for a living. It's also clear based on your comment that you have little understanding how useless the research they did actually was. No point in furthering the conversation with you.
I haven't followed the case at all – life's far too short to care about two huge multinationals waving their willies at each other – but reading the links suggests that Apple have been awarded around $1.5bn for patent infringement.
As far as I can tell the remaining $0.7bn (of the $2.19bn rather than $2bn of the headline?) is for loss of sales – ie Samsung ate into Apple's marketshare through using Apple's own technology. Presumably this $0.7bn isn't being disputed at present, but they'll get around to it shortly.
Not sure why there's a division between licensing costs and loss of sales. Surely the price of such a licence would normally reflect the fact that in improving a competitor's product you're going to lose sales yourself?
As far as I can tell the remaining $0.7bn (of the $2.19bn rather than $2bn of the headline?) is for loss of sales – ie Samsung ate into Apple's marketshare through using Apple's own technology. Presumably this $0.7bn isn't being disputed at present, but they'll get around to it shortly.
Not sure why there's a division between licensing costs and loss of sales. Surely the price of such a licence would normally reflect the fact that in improving a competitor's product you're going to lose sales yourself?
Last edited:
wow Apple and Samsung are currently in their second legal battle over accusations of patent infringement
click through the next website
click through the next website
This is pretty interesting. Samsung is saying they have infringed, pretty much.
But what about all the other manufacturers that have used these patents? Or in other words, phones that were not included in this case that used these patents? They will have to pay too?
And there were quiet a number of other patents that had to be removed from this trial, will those come back in another court battle? Episode III maybe?
Slowly maybe, but will this increase the cost of using Android since they have to pay Apple and Microsoft (unless manufacturers have their own patents to cross-license)?
But what about all the other manufacturers that have used these patents? Or in other words, phones that were not included in this case that used these patents? They will have to pay too?
And there were quiet a number of other patents that had to be removed from this trial, will those come back in another court battle? Episode III maybe?
Slowly maybe, but will this increase the cost of using Android since they have to pay Apple and Microsoft (unless manufacturers have their own patents to cross-license)?
If you ask me Yale lady is overvaluing these patents. $0.25 each? Based on premium Samsung features like "control-your-phone-without-touching-the-screen-but-still-almost-touching-it" which are so awesomely useful and better thats probably a bit much? It probably only cost Samsung a few cents to copy and implement the Apple features surely thats what they should pay for them your Honor, anything more than a 100% markup would be steep?
Tried that once. Unable to buy a Samsung proprietary cord from the Samsung rep. BB didn't have one, and the guy seemed like he had never even imagined their tablets might need a cord. Very useful.
----------
Jokes aren't allowed according to some.
I wrote this in the other thread but applies here...
Irony is that Apple wants to claim that a few patents which Samsung has already worked around are worth so much based on whether or not a customer would choose one device over another but assert that the FRAND patents to make their phone work were priced too high. I don't know about you but as a customer I'm inclined to get a phone that works over some cute features.
Irony is that Apple wants to claim that a few patents which Samsung has already worked around are worth so much based on whether or not a customer would choose one device over another but assert that the FRAND patents to make their phone work were priced too high. I don't know about you but as a customer I'm inclined to get a phone that works over some cute features.
Samsung ADMITS they copied!
So, does saying they owe "only $40 mill" effectively makes them admit they copied Apples patents?
So, does saying they owe "only $40 mill" effectively makes them admit they copied Apples patents?
I think there needs to be a revisit to the definition of "copy."
You know it's nearly impossible these days to invent something that doesn't violate someone's patent. Heck - even Apple themselves didn't know what patents they have or don't.
It's also not wrong or illegal to test the patent system if you feel your implementation is different.
Patents get invalidated all the time. The true test of a patent is if it holds up to scrutiny.