x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Options
    Close






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

posted on 19 Oct 2013, 13:07

17. darkkjedii (Posts: 22165; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)


Noting you stated changes the philosophies of these companies. They are greed driven capitalistic companies, that feed of us.

posted on 19 Oct 2013, 14:18 4

22. willard12 (Posts: 1729; 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.

posted on 19 Oct 2013, 14:22

23. darkkjedii (Posts: 22165; 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

posted on 19 Oct 2013, 20:13

36. ardent1 (Posts: 2000; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)


Oh please.

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.

posted on 19 Oct 2013, 13:42 1

19. Penywyz (banned) (Posts: 255; Member since: 13 Aug 2013)


Amen willard12 Amen!!! +1

posted on 19 Oct 2013, 15:45 1

24. silencer271 (Posts: 254; 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.

posted on 19 Oct 2013, 16:19

27. darkkjedii (Posts: 22165; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)


Exactly. +1

posted on 19 Oct 2013, 17:11

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

posted on 19 Oct 2013, 17:34

31. darkkjedii (Posts: 22165; 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

posted on 19 Oct 2013, 17:50

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?

posted on 19 Oct 2013, 18:55

33. darkkjedii (Posts: 22165; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)


Mmm hmmm.

posted on 19 Oct 2013, 20:31

39. ardent1 (Posts: 2000; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)


Penywyz,

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.

posted on 19 Oct 2013, 20:22

37. ardent1 (Posts: 2000; 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.

posted on 19 Oct 2013, 20:30

38. InspectorGadget80 (unregistered)


SOMEONE PLEASE fire this judge n get a new one. getting sick n tired of this BULL SHHH.

posted on 19 Oct 2013, 21:38

44. roscuthiii (Posts: 2226; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)


BOHICA...

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories