Samsung rests its case seeking $421.8 million from Apple
0. phoneArena 16 Aug 2012, 17:12 posted on
Samsung has rested its case in its patent trial vs. Apple and is seeking $421.8 million from Apple if the jury finds that the Cupertino based firm did indeed infringe on Samsung's patents; most of that figure is based is on the unlicensed use by Apple of two Samsung standards essential patents...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
1. PapaSmurf (Posts: 7370; Member since: 14 May 2012)
Looks like things are going good for Samsung!
17. Tre-Nitty (Posts: 460; Member since: 16 Nov 2010)
How because they are seeking money. You android loyalists never cease to amaze me. I love your loyalty though, I'm just not that passionate about multi billion dollar companies!
23. Santi_Santi (unregistered)
This is not the case. While Apple is looking for $2.5 billions for his "rectangular shape" Samsung is looking for $421 related to touch screen patents. Also, while Apple is charging $30 for each device sold by Samsung, Samsung i charging just $0.11 for each Apple device sold. Who is the greedy now?
40. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)
no, we just hate liars, thieves, bribers, etc.:
deal yourself with the facts:
sites.google [dot] com/site/corpsins/
btw, are you on crack? ;)
43. Tre-Nitty (Posts: 460; Member since: 16 Nov 2010)
No your just android groupies. I carry ios and android unlike people who are loyal to multi billion dollar companies. Y'all are my daily laugh.
49. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)
And Tesco rolls groupies,bmw groupies, adidas groupies.......so why just android........ your logic is weak......we are talking about rotten companies like Apple......and almost everyone who understands IT hates Apple not because he like android but because Apple IS rotten ;)
26. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
well yea.. its been samsung's turn to present. which is why it looked "good" for apple last week when it was their turn. :)
42. E.N. (Posts: 2224; Member since: 25 Jan 2009)
This is a different issue all together. We still have to hear Apple's position on this.
45. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
i think we've gotten apples "position" pretty clearly since they were first to present. Apple has time for a few rebuttal witnesses to samsung's defence and a quick cross examination by samsung, and this game is over.
46. E.N. (Posts: 2224; Member since: 25 Jan 2009)
We definitely have seen Apple's "position" ( I don't know why we're quoting but I'll play along) but this seems slightly different. So far most of this case dealt with Apple accusing Samsung of copying its design and infringing on their patents and Samsung has defended themselves. Now Samsung is accusing Apple for patent infringement. I haven't been closely following every detail of this trial, but from what I know, Apple has yet to even address Samsung's accusations. But I'm sure you've been following this case much more closely than I have, so I'll take your word for how much time is left.
47. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
Apparently you only heard the first half of the case. Samsung has been presenting all week for its defense against apple as well as its claims that Apple is infringing on Samsung's patents. How did you miss the news about Samsung's videos to prove that Apple's patent's are junk and should not have been awarded, the pregnant samsung icon lady, and a bunch of other stuff.
Both sides have "rested their case". This is just the last bit time for Apple to try deny Samsung's patent claims and for a bit of cross examining of Apple's last witnesses by Samsung.
48. E.N. (Posts: 2224; Member since: 25 Jan 2009)
Like I've said, I'm not as interested and invested in the case as you.
2. TROLL (banned) (Posts: 4851; Member since: 13 Apr 2012)
Back after a week's banned by PA. First comment.
Really Good News!
24. TROLL (banned) (Posts: 4851; Member since: 13 Apr 2012)
This was my first comment, not first on commenting.
3. XPERIA-KNIGHT (Posts: 2384; Member since: 08 Aug 2012)
"Samsung is asking for limited royalties because it says its sales were not harmed by any possible infringement by Apple."
Sounds like some body is being mature about the situation and not arrogant...
6. Aeires (unregistered)
Wonder if that will influence the jury in any manner. Samsung could have asked for a ton of money based upon how many devices Apple sold and how much they've made from them, but chose to keep it reasonable instead.
Hopefully this will end mutually acceptable and everyone can move on.
10. phitch (Posts: 214; Member since: 06 Mar 2012)
No, what it sounds like is someone is planting an idea into the juries head. It is a brilliant move, Samsung showed charts that Apple is the most dominant single phone manufacturer, they showed evidence that it wasn't Samsung's infringement that made people choose the them over Apple but rather it was Apple's own inability to produce enough handsets. You can't claim a loss of profit on something that you didn't have to sell. They showed evidence that only 9% of people returning the Galaxy Tab did so because they wanted an iPad instead.
Now they plant the idea of "our sales weren't harmed because of infringement." It is brilliant. They even have a very low (compared to Apple) amount they are seeking in monetary value. To me that says that Samsung is playing a very smart psychological game with the jury. Take that along with what Apple has been attempting to do in court -- a 75 page dossier for witnesses that they will never call? The jury is probably growing tired of Apple as well and Samsung is showing themselves to be a reasonable side.
I can just hope that the jury invalidates several of these patents as well, especially after hearing that Apple was shown multitouch, pinch to zoom, rubberbanding, and bounce back on a touchscreen in 2003. I am not biased against Apple, I think they truly created the smartphone segment as we know it today, but at the same time their history simply doesn't match up with what they are trying to do. Most of their patents are for existing technologies or dress patents. Slide to unlock was on the neonode, their touchscreen technologies were stolen from several places including a company that demoed it to them in 2003, even iOS is nothing more than stolen open source code from the Darwin OS project.
Apple's brand name is what sells their products at this point. Apple could create the next iPhone in an oval shape and people would buy it up. They spent so many years building up this reputation and brand name and all these lawsuits will do is eventually tear it down. If Apple wants to keep on top of the game, well all they really need to do is keep making phones. They don't need lawsuits to do it.
11. XPERIA-KNIGHT (Posts: 2384; Member since: 08 Aug 2012)
Whatever dude i didn't even read this,... the first line was enough to tell me what you think ......You are slightly paranoid and think making the "mature" decision is something else... smh
14. phitch (Posts: 214; Member since: 06 Mar 2012)
Congratulations on not reading my post, maybe if you had you would have actually seen my logic behind the opening line rather than a quick thumbs down and posting how you can't be bothered. You think Samsung is making any decision based on "maturity" rather than what is best for their business and winning this case is silly. Maturity has nothing to do with it. This is about presenting yourself as the most reasonable side of the argument.
27. XPERIA-KNIGHT (Posts: 2384; Member since: 08 Aug 2012)
"logic" is not always the case as you can so vividly see why apple DOES NOT have this particular case "in the bag" like most people seem to think..
29. 305Bucko (Posts: 506; Member since: 07 Aug 2011)
Who the hell WOULD read your post?
Ima tell you like a wise woman once said when handed 75 pages:
"Are you on crack?"
30. XPERIA-KNIGHT (Posts: 2384; Member since: 08 Aug 2012)
hahahah.......EPIC! ....just plain old epic... :)
35. phitch (Posts: 214; Member since: 06 Mar 2012)
I would assume anyone who has an attention span greater than 1 minute. The idea that 3 paragraphs is too long to read is ridiculous. So please, go back to your trailer park and your minimum wage job, they suit you.
36. johnbftl (Posts: 169; Member since: 09 Jun 2012)
I would and did. That is probably one of the most thought out and intelligent posts I've ever read on here. Why are you giving this person hell? It's not his/her fault you don't have the brain capacity to read 4 paragraphs. Great post phitch.
44. gwuhua1984 (Posts: 1237; Member since: 06 Mar 2012)
Even if he was on crack, his post was very reasonable.
51. HäckeMáte (Posts: 168; Member since: 28 Feb 2012)
Really? You shouldve published a book.
Im sure your "comment" was very insightful. According to the thumbsup it was awesome, but I have to agree with the others, keep it short and sweet, some of us have a life.
19. jroc74 (Posts: 4720; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
I asked at the beginning of all this ....how can Apple claim its been hurt by Samsung financially....when every new iPhone has outsold the previous one.
Of course I had Apple fanboys trying to downplay it.
Agree with alot of this post. And yea......ppl....please read past the 1st sentence. Its worth it IMO.
4. androidornothing (Posts: 143; Member since: 26 Apr 2012)
Yaaaaa budddyyyyy Samsung all the way!!!!!!!! Galaxy S3 is like the best thing that happened to mobile world!!!
9. rusticguy (Posts: 2819; Member since: 11 Aug 2012)
Yup. I'll be switching to G SIII or Note after i retire from using Nokia this year and would move to GSIII or Note. G SIII In India costs 36K whereas the "Locked Inside Your Prison" - IPhone - costs 56k. Why should i pay 20K more for a outdated crap? I am not an Idiot so i don't need a Idiot Proof devices that Apple products claim (sales pitch) to be.
31. poojaroy (Posts: 52; Member since: 29 Apr 2012)
u r right rusticguy y pay more when its not comparitive.lots of frenz has sold their i phone to buy s3
13. Jay_F (Posts: 236; Member since: 29 Nov 2011)
Calm down there cheerleader, you're making yourself and the others who like Android look bad.
7. gwuhua1984 (Posts: 1237; Member since: 06 Mar 2012)
I thought it was a 75 page document with about 20 rebuttal witnesses...?
8. tedkord (Posts: 4282; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
God, where's Posner when you need him? Send them both to bed with no supper.
50. LostInTheRed (Posts: 85; Member since: 03 May 2012)
He's busy ruling that embedding illegal porn vids on another website is not illegal because the website is not actually hosting the video.
12. khmer (Posts: 92; Member since: 21 Jun 2012)
SamApple trial must be close now to save money on both sides on lawyers pay checks.
20. scifan (Posts: 6; Member since: 16 Aug 2012)
Apple's been patent trolling now for a while... would be good to see them finally get slapped down.
21. downphoenix (Posts: 2267; Member since: 19 Jun 2010)
The irony of if Samsung was to win these funds and Apple was to lose the case is awesome.
22. Quezdagreat (Posts: 411; Member since: 05 Apr 2012)
There must br something I am not getting, How can apple infringe something when Samsung is the manufactuer of the phone.
25. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
the patents are not hardware. they are software. Samsung does the some of the heavy lifting for them on the hardware side but more than likely doesnt get to see the finished products which are built by foxonn or the software on it.
32. OptimusOne (Posts: 694; Member since: 22 May 2012)
WHy isn't apple suing Xiaomi for their MIUI? my god, it even has the exact same screen transitions... normal android doesn't even better
and better yet, MIUI is better than touchwiz or IOS. why does apple sue samsung again?
33. Fuego84 (Posts: 259; Member since: 13 May 2012)
Samsung is acting like a responsible adult while Apple's a teenager smoking crack.
34. Teejay1100 (Posts: 14; Member since: 16 Aug 2012)
The judge is going to intervene if the CEO's don't settle and throw out the case!! Watch and see
41. shuaibhere (Posts: 1297; Member since: 07 Jul 2012)
This clearly shows Sammy's aim is not make money from lawsuits but from products...unlike apple want to make money from both the things....