Get ready for Apple and Samsung to square off next month in the damages retrial
0. phoneArena 19 Oct 2013, 09:23 posted on
Starting November 12th, the three-ring circus known as Apple v. Samsung returns to the Northern District of California to begin a limited damages retrial. Judge Lucy Koh, who presided over the original trial, will be at the helm here as well; after all, it was her idea to vacate $450 million in damages awarded to Apple. The jury ruled that some Samsung phones had infringed on more than one patent, yet it awarded only one damage amount...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
7. darkkjedii (Posts: 8878; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Nope, Judge Koh judging again. If it were apple on the losing end, you'd love Koh. Grow up, and let the parties involved sort it out. You continue being a consumer.
20. Googler (Posts: 813; Member since: 10 Jun 2013)
Koh is a rookie judge, she should never have been assigned this case. The case should have been assigned to someone more mature in the position and at the very least, have a technical background so they can understand the points being made in the case. She has neither.
She'll probably go down in history as being worse than judge Ito. There's no winning for her, both companies have too many fans. No matter who wins, the other side will cry foul.
26. darkkjedii (Posts: 8878; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
That's a fair assessment, but calling her a troll is childish. The lady has a job to do, and isn't on the take. +1 goog
34. ardent1 (Posts: 1968; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
Googler, you wouldn't know what maturity means even if you got hit in the face with it.
She knows the rule of law. That is why she is a judge. When you graduate from Harvard Law School, maybe you might has some credibility.
She went out of her way to have a fair trial. She encouraged both sides to settle before the trial (Samsung would never admit their guilt before the trial). She gave Samsung another chance to settle before jury deliberation (it was self-evident that Apple had made a compelling case). Then after the verdict, you had Samsung attacking the jury foreman. Now you have the case of Samsung violating confidential info, e.g. information reserved for attorney's eyes. We knew after the fact that Samsung plays dirty. Despite all that, Judge Koh gave Samsung a fair trial.
She doesn't need a technical background -- what she needed was legal training to understand the rule of law. And that gamble by Samsung or Google (Android camp) to challenge Apple's patents blew UP in their face. And you don't need any stinking technical background to see the sh*t Samsung pulls.
All Samsung had to do was (a) out invent Apple or (b) work with Apple when Samsung got caught -- Apple even offered access to low-level patents to Samsung if Samsung would stop their theft of IP. It was never about Judge Koh.
40. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 5462; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
and y do u think she was questions at a conference oon capital hill
41. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 5462; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
y do u think she was question at a confernce on capital hill?
2. Santi_Santi (unregistered)
Paraphernalia Mode = ON
3. CellularNinja (Posts: 260; Member since: 27 Sep 2011)
This kind of crap gives tech companies a bad name. Spend your money on making better products for once, Apple.
11. THE.DARK.KNIGHT (banned) (Posts: 269; Member since: 09 Sep 2013)
This kind of stuff gives a company a bad name................. On phonearena.com
You wanna know what gives companies a bad reputation? Defective products. I am just giving an example (every company has flaws in their products initially). Other examples include harming the environment. Example: dumping harmful waste etc
21. Googler (Posts: 813; Member since: 10 Jun 2013)
It's bigger than that. Samsung sales soared after the case because it made the general public more aware of their products. It's not just tech geeks on web sites that follow this case.
35. ardent1 (Posts: 1968; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
If you looked at gazelle or other sites that recycle smart phones, people were dumping Samsung products when the verdict came out.
5. Beijendorf (Posts: 143; Member since: 27 Aug 2013)
These patent disputes are among the most idiotic things of the decade.
It's reduces innovation and goes out over all consumers.
6. thedarkside (Posts: 639; Member since: 30 Apr 2012)
i think its time that sammy quit making the A7 chips for apple and let them fend for them selves.
how is one able to patent a shape? i wanna know how so i can patent a shape that, more than likely, has been used by others before. then, when i find out that my biggest rival is using a similar shape, im going to blow my load and sue the crap out of them. all while hoping that my biggest rival still makes things for my product.
9. darkkjedii (Posts: 8878; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Unfortunately what you think doesn't matter. Samsung is a big greedy tech company, just like apple. Samsung only want your $$$, just like apple, and just like Samsung does for apple. Apple makes a ton of $$$, for Samsung. Just remember, there's a reason these two still have a business relationship despite the lawsuits. That reason is called "Big Business", it's a capitalistic world bro. Samsung and apples bottom line is money, yours and mine, and they both make tons of it.
12. thedarkside (Posts: 639; Member since: 30 Apr 2012)
i get that, but i dont think sammy is as greedy as apple. why else would apple not use a universal charging port like all the other tech giants? why do i make more on selling an android than i do an iphone? hell, i make more selling a basic phone than i do an iphone. apple wants peoples money more than they want customer satisfaction. i bet that apple could sell the 5s 16gb at 299.99 and they would still have the same sales numbers as they do now.
13. darkkjedii (Posts: 8878; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
"Sammy isn't as greedy as apple" let me ask you this, if I murder 2 people and the guy down the street murders 50, does it matter who murders more as far as us both being killers? Samsungs really greedy, apples very greedy...tell me what's the common denominator? And just as you say you make more selling an android, some make more selling an iPhone. Both are awesome, both are household names, both are synonymous with quality and dependability.
14. THE.DARK.KNIGHT (banned) (Posts: 269; Member since: 09 Sep 2013)
So you are saying that apple is significantly greedier than samsung? And dark side do you think micro USB is better? I actually have to aim the micro USB cord into my galaxy s3. Whereas, I don't even have to look when plugging in my iPad 4 or my 5S. The fact that you are crying over no micro USB in an iPhone shows that you are a careless person who keeps losing his cords every other day. Also, the other end will always be a standard USB port so why worry? If you are concerned about file transfer then know this- copy trams manager takes very good care about that and VLC makes transferring videos very easy.
15. darkkjedii (Posts: 8878; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Well said TDK. why not just enjoy your purchase, and leave people alone. +1
18. thedarkside (Posts: 639; Member since: 30 Apr 2012)
the micro usb just shows how greedy apple can be. every other phone has a micro usb. apple on the other hand like to keep their specific charger. why? so then people have to buy the new cables. and filling the pockets of apple.
42. THE.DARK.KNIGHT (banned) (Posts: 269; Member since: 09 Sep 2013)
@thedarkside Dude we never lose our cords. Atleast I don't. So we never have to buy separate cords from apple. May be once in two years but that's the price of daily convenience.
45. thedarkside (Posts: 639; Member since: 30 Apr 2012)
and i havent had to replace cords because all mine are the same.
25. hmmm... (Posts: 37; Member since: 05 Jun 2013)
It does matter. the person who murders more will most likely get a heavier punishment in court. So 2 people dead and 48 extra dead is the same? so the 48 extra people are junk. counts for nothing.
Yeah. so a person who takes 50 cents from a vending machine is the same as the person who robs millions from a bank. both will get the same punishment in court?
28. rusticguy (Posts: 2810; Member since: 11 Aug 2012)
When it comes to defending Apple in the US, there's a new math -- 2=50 :)
30. darkkjedii (Posts: 8878; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Completely missed the point. So I'll offer nothing further.
43. roscuthiii (Posts: 1658; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
I think that what we got going on here jedii. ;-)
8. silencer271 (Posts: 132; Member since: 05 Apr 2013)
honestly who cares. Its free publicity for both samsung and apple.
10. darkkjedii (Posts: 8878; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Exactly s271... We, myself included get on here and post all this stuff. It doesn't matter one ounce, as far as the judges decision, or Sammy and Apples strategy. They're gonna continue to do what they do, work with/against each other, and we'll continue to fan the flame of war. These blind apple and Samsung fans don't realize how much publicity, and money they're giving these two. All apple and Sammy want is $$$, no different than Ford and Chevy, Pepsi and Coke, Kellogg and Post.
16. willard12 (Posts: 485; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
Ford/chevy and coke/pepsi aren't suing each other every other month. Coke isn't pursuing a ban of Pepsi products for daring to make a cola flavored beverage. Your comparisons alre flawed. The blind are those who continue to throw their money at corporations in spite of their monopolistic business practices just for the sake of saying the were the "first" people to have it. You mentioned Ford. Well, Henry Ford had to disavow his antisemitic beliefs in order to survive after receiving a backlash from consumers. Consumers have power to affect change. Sadly, some continue to provide these businesses the revenue they need to continue the status quo.
17. darkkjedii (Posts: 8878; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Noting you stated changes the philosophies of these companies. They are greed driven capitalistic companies, that feed of us.
22. willard12 (Posts: 485; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
All businesses are in it to make money. The good ones try to bring new products to the market and compete with their ideas. You can't really say "these companies" when only one company is trying to make money by eliminating competition. Hell, when Apple could have been eliminated, they were saved by MS. Yes, every company wants to make money. But, can you think of any other company willing to go thermonuclear in the courtroom and not the lab? When a football team starts losing, some practice harder and make new plays. Others work the refs.
23. darkkjedii (Posts: 8878; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Ok dude this back n forth bickering and trying to one up each other is pointless. So how about this... You win have a nice day...amen willard12 amen!!! +1
36. ardent1 (Posts: 1968; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
1. No one goes thermonuclear -- it's a figure of speech.
2. NOT all businesses are in it to make money because we have non-profit groups, gov't agencies, charities, foundations, etc.
It's really sad that Samsung though they could get away with stealing Apple's IP that Apple had spent millions of dollars and years developing.
While some companies work the ref, Samsung set a new standard as a sore loser, let's attack the jury foreman. Samsung's problem was that they blatantly and DELIBERATELY copied Apple's IP and were brazen enough to tell Apple to sue them.
We have a saying in America, though the wheels of Justice grind slowly, they grind exceedingly fine. Samsung reaped what it sowed.
24. silencer271 (Posts: 132; Member since: 05 Apr 2013)
and its not like either one of them cant afford it. A billion to samsung is like maybe a house payment to us it hurts but they will get over it quickly and it being at 555 million now thats like the electric bill to us stings but forgotten.
29. Penywyz (banned) (Posts: 255; Member since: 13 Aug 2013)
These companies are all fueled by greed according to you, but now you applaud this guy saying that they don't care if they lose money? That's a pretty strong contradiction of your own previous statements is it not?... SMH
31. darkkjedii (Posts: 8878; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Lol wow. Them not caring about losing a little is the effect of greed and making so much money. Dude relax and just enjoy your device(s) lol. Gee wiz
32. Penywyz (banned) (Posts: 255; Member since: 13 Aug 2013)
Maybe you should educate yourself on the definition of greed since apparently you didn't realize you are using it incorrectly.
Greed(N): intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power or food.
AGAIN how does what you are saying make any sense?
39. ardent1 (Posts: 1968; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
Being greedy and then tolerating a small fine as part of the basis to create said greedy is consistent, and not a contradiction.
You failed miserably at arguing being greedy and paying a small fine are mutually exclusive, but that is NOT the case if one is INDEPENDENT of each other.
Penywyz, please do us a favor and learn logic, especially the basic concept of "mutually exclusive" and "independent".
Again, there is nothing wrong with being greedy if it involves paying a small fine, when the net effect results in more "wealth" than not being greedy enough and avoiding the associated fine, respectively. This is simple logic.
37. ardent1 (Posts: 1968; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
It's really bad for Samsung.
On the business front, their reputation takes a huge hit. We're Samsung and we like to steal IP.
On the legal front, Samsung is now facing a slippery slope since Apple can argue that Samsung's new handsets are just derivative works of the infringing product(s). Samsung got check-mated because their S2, S3, S4 are all improvements from the original that had copied Apple.
On the finance front, Apple has more legal issues against Samsung. Once Apple set up the precedent by willing the first case, it's now that much easier for Apple to get slam dunks against Samsung in the later cases.
In Europe, there's talk of a $18 billion fine against Samsung.
The bottom line is you need to look toward the future to see the damage Samsung inflicted onto itself.
38. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 5462; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
SOMEONE PLEASE fire this judge n get a new one. getting sick n tired of this BULL SHHH.