Apple asks the court to stop Samsung from using sensitive sales data in its cross-examination today
1. Aeires (unregistered)
Most intriguing part of the trial, what information about sales does Apple not want the public to know? Is there something controversial about how they reached the $600 billion mark? Please tell.
62. p0rkguy (Posts: 671; Member since: 23 Nov 2010)
More like their quarterly numbers are a load of sh*t.
88. joey_sfb (Posts: 1477; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
Apple lying again! SHOCK!!!
You ask for this trial and hell freezes over you are getting it.
2. hawke9150 (Posts: 29; Member since: 17 Jun 2011)
Of course Apple doesn't want thier information public, as it will "Harm" them. It will show that what they tell the public and what they keep private are 2 vastly different things. Come on Apple let the world know how bad things are truly.
24. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
How bad? Apple is the richest tech company on the planet.
29. remixfa (Posts: 13882; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
if they are hiding sales, then they are hiding profits, which means they could be liable to the govt for a lot more taxes or other things.
Rotten apple has yet another hole in its fruit.
33. E.N. (Posts: 2216; Member since: 25 Jan 2009)
Remixfa, you are so ridiculous. How did you even come up with that? Have you ever considered the possibility that you don't know everything?
38. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
He truly is one of the biggest trolls on here. Just yesterday he insinuated that Obama had purposely appointed judge Koh to Apple's case and that he had secret meetings with Steve Jobs to let Apple win.
42. matrix_neo (Posts: 306; Member since: 03 Nov 2011)
Ïtaco50, You're also in the list of biggest trolls here in PA, thumb me down if true lol
73. remixfa (Posts: 13882; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
its pretty easy. Why do they hide their sales numbers? what are they worried of. The first thing that pops to your mind is that they were fudging the numbers.. Either too high to make themselves look good, or too low to hide money made. If it was too low, then they were trying to cheat the tax system and can get into trouble with the IRS and/or other agencies.
I didnt realy think it was that far of a stretch..even for you little trolls..
95. E.N. (Posts: 2216; Member since: 25 Jan 2009)
I'm glad that you realize that it was a stretch though.
36. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
Remix why does Samsung refuse to report sales?
51. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 4721; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Ummm. I seem to remember that Apple is asking for a sales ban on Sammy's phones. One of the arguments they are making in support of the sales ban is that monetary damages are not sufficient to compensate them for Sammy being such a hard competitor. The details of Apple's sales are therefore open to inquiry to determine what about them is so fragile that it requires a sales ban.
In the U.S. (at least for civil matters) transparent proceedings (that means full disclosure to the public) are still the rule rather than the exception.
58. D.Aceveda (Posts: 301; Member since: 30 Jun 2012)
Taco you're a dumb s**t. Get your head out of your ass already please. You might actually make some sense if you do.
74. remixfa (Posts: 13882; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
They are company based out of Korea, I dont give a darn why they hide their sales. Let Korea deal with that.
Apple is an american company. If they are hiding sales then they are screwing the US out of tax money more than they already do by hiding 70 billion in the caymans ans switzerland.
43. networkdood (Posts: 4748; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
Remixfa makes a great and valid point - like the common Joe, corporations do not report everything...
34. Lucas777 (Posts: 2115; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
i dont think it is unusual for apple to want to keep it hidden… for example samsung releases no sales figures about its phones-- nobody is getting upset about that...
55. tedkord (Posts: 3409; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Yes, but Samsung aren't claiming that others using their invention of rectangles and icon grids is causing them $2 Billion of damages. If you want to claim damages, you've got to show your figures.
67. Lucas777 (Posts: 2115; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
you have a point.. i dont agree that apple should keep them hidden, but what i was trying to get across is that it is not unusual-- many companies like to keep their exact sales figures hidden
3. speckledapple (Posts: 873; Member since: 29 Sep 2011)
I think that if Apple wants to show how much harm Samsung has made to them by infringing on their patents, they should publically show just how deep and personal that harm goes. The numbers will certainly not lie.
6. wsucoug13 (Posts: 164; Member since: 04 May 2012)
You mean the patents Apple made after the idea was already in a Samsung phone....?
27. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
Can you give me a specific example?
70. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
Introduced in February 2007 after the iPhone introduction.
It also had a qwerty keypad soo not like the iPhone
75. remixfa (Posts: 13882; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
the F700 was released/introduced in 2006 troll.
77. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
The SGH-F700 is a mobile phone manufactured by Samsung. Using Vodafone as its network provider, the phone was first introduced at the 3GSM World Congress that was held in February 2007. Sales to the European market started November 2007.
Hmm looks like you're wrong as always
96. jroc74 (Posts: 3455; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
So...you mean to tell me they totally designed the F700 in 3 months?
Pretty sure they were developing it in 2006.
81. tedkord (Posts: 3409; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Less than a month after the iPhone was introduced. Do you really believe Samsung saw the iPhone and less than a month later had a working phone that was a rectangle with rounded corners?
We now know that prior to the iPhone, both Samsung and Sony had designs for large touchscreen phones that were rectangles with rounded corners with few to no buttons on the face.
That says the design was an obvious evolution of smartphone design, not a unique revolutionary design as Apple would have us believe. Patents need to be in things with no prior art, and they must be non obvious.
91. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
When iPad 2 came out Samsing redid their tablet in one month to look like the iPad.
97. jroc74 (Posts: 3455; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
Redid the ...entire...tablet...or parts of it. In 1 month?
I thought they just made it thinner....that isnt the entire tablet.
Please troll better than this.
60. poojaroy (Posts: 52; Member since: 29 Apr 2012)
samsung f700 was released b4 1st iphone 7 months b4
4. andro. (Posts: 1890; Member since: 16 Sep 2011)
Hmmm Apple is hiding something here with sales,does it show the majority of sales are immediately at launch from ifans with stark drops throughout the year after that,does it show how many iphones sold figures are those as replacement handsets for broken handsets and post 1 year warranty faulty handsets,certainly apple wants something secret hidden. Could this cause 'severe harm'?
25. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
You can't be serious. His whole comment was a troll
35. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 4721; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Apple has sh*t running down their leg at the prospect of something being released. So much sh*t running down their leg that they have asked for a 5 day stay so they can file an emergency appeal if their judge rules against them. In that circumstance, what would they be wanting to suppress? It has to be pretty bad.
This is starting to sound like Mittens refusal to release any of his tax returns prior to 2010. It is obvious that he has something that is lethal in those returns. Like maybe he paid zero taxes?
Where there is smoke, there is fire.
39. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
Why doesn't Samsung report sales figures?
52. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 4721; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Ummm. Because it (Sammy) isn't asking for a sales ban?
69. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
But you have no issues with Samsung not reporting it, however when Apple doesn't report it's a conspiracy.
82. tedkord (Posts: 3409; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
No, but if Apple are suing because they claim that Samsung supposed copying harmed their sales, then they've got to open those sales figures up for scrutiny. Just the way it is.
92. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
They are to the court. They don't have to to the public
5. a1000smiles4u (Posts: 84; Member since: 24 Apr 2012)
a day will come when Apple would ask her Koh to ask Samsung not to defend itself in court
7. sp3llv3xit (Posts: 20; Member since: 15 Sep 2011)
Yeah, Apple is hiding something under the sheets. But Judge Koh is a good bedfellow. She'll cooperate with Apple so she can continue to cavort with this fruit in bed.
8. MartyK (Posts: 651; Member since: 11 Apr 2012)
What is wrong with APPLE?.
They ask to go to Court now they are crying cause Samsung is bring in exhibits?..WTH?!
Apple this is COURT, they are allow to produce exhibits !!!
14. NexusKoolaid (Posts: 242; Member since: 24 Oct 2011)
Re-read the article - that's not what's being said. They're not motioning to disallow the exhibits, they are motioning that these exhibits not be made public.
37. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 4721; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
The Nazis provided all manner of 'due process' to the Jews before they ultimately gassed them. All of the due process was done in secret, just like Apple is wanting now with Sammy. In the U.S., there is still the presumption of a transparent judicial process (at least for now). If Apple was so afraid of what could come out at trial, maybe they shouldn't have filed the lawsuit in the first place?
40. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
You're ridiculous comparing Apple to Nazis.
53. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 4721; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Darn, you beat me to the post. I go into a meeting and come back and you have already posted.
49. NexusKoolaid (Posts: 242; Member since: 24 Oct 2011)
I neither stated nor implied being against or in agreement with Apple's motion against public release. I was just correcting an apparent misreading of the article, is all.
54. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 4721; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
No issues on my end. Your post seemed a logical point for entry into the discussion.
9. Slammer (Posts: 672; Member since: 03 Jun 2010)
I seriously don't understand Apple's abstinence here. No one is above the law. We can respect a certain secrecy from Apple. It has always been an MO of theirs. But not court preceedings. What are they trying to hide? This seems very suspicious.
10. structureman116 (Posts: 131; Member since: 14 Sep 2010)
Apple not wanting these sales figures going public makes it sound like something with their records is not kosher. Also...based on previous requests, we all know Judge Koh is already deep in bed with Apple, so she will grant them what they want!
11. ph00ny (Posts: 529; Member since: 26 May 2011)
It's just a sales figure. How much harm could it do? Unless there is something really wrong with the information
12. ibap (Posts: 650; Member since: 09 Sep 2009)
Hilarious. "Just take our word for it. We've been harmed. We don't have to discuss the data to support that".
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
"These are not the droids you are looking for."
"Here, drink this Kool-Aid."
Why does this feel like the Romney tax records? Is it just that it's an election year?
And what is with this judge? I'm sure both sides are already preparing appeal documents.