“The jury deciding Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co.’s $2 billion patent-infringement case asked the judge for additional evidence about whether Google Inc. was mentioned when Steve Jobs, the iPhone maker’s co-founder, decided to sue,” Joel Rosenblatt reports for Bloomberg.
“U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, in a note responding to the jury’s question yesterday, said the panel can only consider evidence that was introduced during the trial and that no supplemental material will be provided,” Rosenblatt reports. “Yesterday was the jury’s first full day of deliberations following a trial with almost four weeks of testimony.”
Rosenblatt reports, “Samsung argued at trial that Apple’s real target in the lawsuit is Google’s Android operating system. Android is used to run Samsung smartphones, and most of Apple’s claims in its second U.S. trial against the Suwon, South Korea-based maker of Galaxy phones relate to Android functions. ‘Reading between the lines, there appears to be some disagreement among jurors about why this case was filed,’ Brian Love, a law professor at Santa Clara University, said in an e-mail about the jury’s request. ‘In particular, the jury seems to be debating whether this case represents a genuine effort by Apple to protect patents it truly values or, instead, is a pretext for a general attack on Samsung and Google.'”
“Apple and Samsung have fought battles across four continents to dominate a market that was valued at $338.2 billion last year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg,” Rosenblatt reports. “Samsung had 31 percent of industry revenue, compared with 15 percent for Apple, whose share of the market has shrunk as the touch-screen interface became more commonplace and Samsung, LG Electronics Inc. and Lenovo Group Ltd. have introduced lower-cost alternatives.”
MacDailyNews Take: Apple doesn’t compete for market share per se since Apple doesn’t target low-cost customers as they are not worth it. Not all customers are created equal. So, why do reporters continually measure Apple vs. competitors in the wrong way? Why don’t reporters compare Apple’s profit share to rivals? Answers: Because reporters like Joel Rosenblatt are lazy, ignorant, anti-Apple, or some combination of the three conditions.
Rosenblatt continues, “The patent disputes began when Samsung released its Galaxy smartphones in 2010. Jobs, who died Oct. 5, 2011, initiated contact with Samsung over his concerns that the Galaxy phones copied the iPhone. Jobs later vowed to wage “thermonuclear war” to prove that phones running on Android copy the iPhone.”
MacDailyNews Take: Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:
Rosenblatt continues, “Both companies in closing arguments this week addressed the biggest surprise of the trial — when Apple put on evidence last week showing that Google is backing Samsung’s legal defense, after revealing that the Galaxy maker in 2012 had denied seeking indemnification from anyone. Apple argued the revelation cast doubt on Samsung’s “credibility,” while Samsung sought to brush the insinuation aside, saying it can’t be used to find the company liable for infringement.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Here’s what Google’s Android looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:
Furthermore, here’s what cellphones looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Arline M.” for the heads up.]
Although Google should get sued, Samsung went far beyond Google in ripping the UI and trade dress.
There is truth in this, but still… I think this trial tarnished Apple’s public image more than it hurt Samsung’s.
As for MDN’s comment on profit share being important. Sure, it’s a factor, being able to command larger margins, but it makes you more vulnerable as well.
If Samsung sells 4x as many units but has 25% less profit per unit, they are affected less than Apple when unit sales drop (after a bad batch of phones/ bad PR / economic problems )
Samsung, like it or not, is better equipped to handle ups and downs. Apple, although commanding premium luxury margins, is far more vulnerable.
It’s got mindshare, but that can change… and quick.
And I think you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Apple can lower margins to win back any naysayers if and when a crappy iPhone is released.
Samsung, with their two for the price of one, after two weeks of new phone sales, means Samsung has big losses after a poor 5g crap phone is released. Given that and a 12 billion per year advertising campaign Samsung could be in deep dodo with two to three crap phones in a row.
Sooooo, the party that is wronged and brings to court another party that committed a crime now has a “tarnished” public image?
Do you also think that victims of assault are also “asking for it?”
Wow that latest graphic at the bottom of the article here is great. Really shows the impact that one well executed device can have on an entire industry.
MDN kill me! Should Benz post what their car looked like before Ford came along? Can you imagine if the world ran according to MDN! Yikes! Get out of the basement as see the world MDN bloggers!
You just don’t seem to understand. Benz didn’t change their design after Ford came along. You don’t understand logical reasoning.
It’s a troll.
What are you blathering on about “Paul”. Are you stuck in days of the old trial that Apple won (and still got $0)? THIS trial has no patents defending “trade dress”. They are all technical. Nothing to do with shape. Maybe you should get out of your mothers basement.
Paul on Paul action!
This is why allowing anonymous coward posting is ridiculous.
‘Hmm. What anonymous coward troll shall I pretend to be today? Today I feel like a ‘Mike’, but my horoscope says ‘Paul’.
Possession of stolen goods is illegal in the US. Bust the fence, then bust the thief.
It looks like the jury has been distracted by Samsung’s Google diversion. Apple has lost this case already. Justice denied.
Once again…
Stop. Buying. Samsung. Products.
If the courts cannot do this properly, the customers can!
Most customers aren’t even aware of this trial or don’t care. 😖
That’s the sad truth of this situation 😢
MD News take Apple doesn’t compete for market share per se since Apple doesn’t target low-cost customers as they are not worth it.
Bull shit. If Apple could sell the 5C to low-cost customers they’d do so in a heartbeat.
Apple operates in a Vertical Market, that’s why marketshare is meaningless and not because they eschew the “low-cost customer”.
In their Vertical Market, Apple’s core customers sustain the company through good & bad times which obviates to the need to use marketshare as a metric when comparing competing markets.
Marketshare is critical to Dell and HP because they don’t make the Operating System. Customer loyalty is nonexistent simply because the consumer can shop around for the best price for a computer, that runs Microsoft’s OS.
Vertical Market simply means Apple is invested in the Soup to Nuts experience.
Those who come to Macintosh because of Boot Camp, Parallels, et. al., see these products as a safety net, but over time a few find they are booting in to Windows less and less and eventually reclaim a wasted partition.
Mac users are the market and we share very little in common with those outside of our market.
Amen brother.
Wrong. Apple wants high value customers. Customers who “get it” and who continue buying after the sale – that’s what we want. Not Buy One Get One Free coupon clippers who steal music and movies, etc.
So your saying, those who scrimp and save to buy the low-end iMacs, like I do, and not Mac Pros aren’t welcome?
Well excuse me for living.
You’re taking something personally that shouldn’t be taken personally and letting that confuse the hell out of you. You must be a Liberal.
and you must work at MDN
If I worked at MDN, I’d be fired from where I do work immediately. And, yes, I always rate my comments with 5-stars, but only because they are consistently 5-star comments.
And, yes, I always rate my comments with 5-stars, but only because they are consistently 5-star comments.
You have a very high opinion of yourself, that’s for sure. Rating all your comments with 5-stars is a sure sign of weakness.
I certainly wouldn’t expect you to rate yourself with anything less than a five, but the fact that you rate your comments at all is pathetic.
One need only ask, what’s being rewarded. If it’s critical for you to come across as highly favored then by all means feed your habit, but you’ve lost my respect.
It was a joke.
That you didn’t “get it,” isn’t the least bit surprising.
Words have meaning or they don’t!
“It was a joke.”
That’s funny, because I didn’t catch the sarcasm. You were defending yourself and your comments are rated 5-stars the moment after their published and you and I are the only ones in this conversation.
So I have you to thank for the single-stars.
Do you always rate your own comments with 5-stars?
Apparently you do.
Those who settle for a 5C, instead of springing for the top-of-the-line 5S isn’t welcome either?
You’re saying Apple customers who own Apple’s low-end products clip coupons and steal music and movies? I have to disagree with your brand of bull shit.
But I suppose I don’t “get it” and could by why I’ve been treated with hostility and scorn all these years; I don’t belong in the Apple camp, huh?
You Millennial’s are something else. Your first introduction to Apple was brought about because of iPhone and you have the nerve to tell me, a thirty-eight-year veteran of Apple, I’m a coupon-clipping thief?
I don’t see iPhone 5c offered for “$0 with a plan” in BOGOF promos. They may exist somewhere, I don’t know, as I’m not in the market for a 20-month old iPhone in a plastic case. I own a 64GB iPhone 5s (Gold). But, back to the point: iPhone 5c is not targeted at the Buy One Get One Free coupon clippers who steal music and movies, etc.
And, I’m not a “Millennial,” either.
So you admit that, anyone who participates in the BOGO and doesn’t own Apple products is a cheap thief?
You’re rather smug aren’t you?
And, I’m not a “Millennial,” either.
Maybe you aren’t, but you are new to Apple. Because in all my years of associating with Apple consumers I’ve never heard anyone talk like you do.
Customers who “get it” and who continue buying after the sale”
Idiot! I said the very same thing in my comment, which you apparently skimmed right over.
In their Vertical Market, Apple’s core customers sustain the company through good & bad times which obviates to the need to use marketshare as a metric when comparing competing markets.
The following statement is not bullshit nor it is “Bull Shit.” It is the very basis of Apple’s business model:
“Apple doesn’t compete for market share per se since Apple doesn’t target low-cost customers as they are not worth it.”
“Apple doesn’t compete for market share per se since Apple doesn’t target low-cost customers as they are not worth it.”
That is MDN’s opinion and not the basis of anything Apple. As I said earlier, “low-cost” customers have been brainwashed into thinking Apple is overly expensive and chances are millions of “low-cost” customers would buy entry-level Apple products if they weren’t being mislead.
There is no doubt in my mind a “low-cost” customer could easily become unshackled from the stereotype casting you’re proffering, if presented with the facts.
Why don’t you wake up to your own brand of bullshit?
What value would low-cost (low-class) customers bring besides increased support costs (to get their iPhone working with their fucking Packard Bell) and little or no sales (content, apps, iTunes Match, iCloud upgrades) after the initial sale which only served to hurt Apple’s margins?
Trust me, Apple doesn’t want them. Samsung can have them.
What value would low-cost (low-class) customers…”
I’m gonna stop you right there. You’re arguing over MDNs opinion as to what constitutes a “low-cost” customer and I have a different opinion about MDNs take, that’s all.
From the beginning, you’ve equated low-cost with low-class and further, went on to describe the typical low-class customer using generalized bullshit to back up your argument.
We’re done, anon. I knew you were bullshit and should have trusted my better judgement than to argue with someone who isn’t even a member of MDN.
Anonymous coward.
I have to be anonymous due to where I work.
You aren’t working! You’re fucking off online, talking about hoes.
There, now we’re done.
Who are you talking to? They Jury? The MDN membership?
There are no Samsung sympathizers here.
according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Samsung had 31 percent of industry revenue, compared with 15 percent for Apple, whose share of the market has shrunk as the touch-screen interface became more commonplace
What Bloomberg fails to disclose is, Apple’s 15-percent revenue represents twice as much money as Samsung’s 31-percent.
Clearly this is indicative of the original product being far superior to the knockoff.
I don’t think that’s true.. Revenue represents total money received from sales of products, Profit represents the portion of revenue left after all expenses have been subtracted. As such all Profits show is that Apple has more left over after expenses. Profits alone DO NOT show how much a company influences the economy as a whole.
Bloomberg is reporting it wrong. The facts are these, according to Investors Business Daily as of February 11, 2014: Apple (AAPL) and Samsung continue to soak up all the industry’s profits, McCourt says. Apple claimed 87.4% of phone earnings before interest and taxes in the fourth quarter, he said. Samsung took in 32.2% of industry profits. Because their combined earnings were higher than the industry’s total earnings as a result of many vendors losing money in Q4, Apple and Samsung mathematically accounted for more than 100% of the industry’s earnings.
In fact, Apple’s Revenues are a big influence. . . They are talking MARKET SHARE, number of units sold, not revenue, when they are saying Apple has 15% and Samsung has 31%. Those are not revenue percentages. . . They are market share percentages. This is piss poor journalism. Let’s say the market is just 1000 phones. Company “S” can sell 31% of the total number of phones sold for $104 each, or a Company “A” can sell 15% of the phones sold at $583 each, while every other company “E” sells the 54% of the phones sold below cost at $75 each, losing ~$106 per phone. Which company makes the most money? Company “S” (shall we call it Samsung?), with a 32.2% revenue sells $31,310. Company “A”, (shall we call it Apple?), with a 87.5% revenue sells $87,450! And all the rest, Companies “E” et al, to account for the numbers, sell 540 at -$57,240. Oops.
The suit was filed against samdung, not Gaagle.
Good to see samsung chewing down some podcasts.
If you can’t win on the merits of the case, obfuscate and distract the jury from the real case.
It worked for Microsoft in the “look and feel” lawsuit.
Let’s hope it does not work for Samsung now.
Apple’s lawyers took a *HUGE* (I can’t emphasize that enough) risk in bringing into the case the fact that Google is helping Samsung fund their suit. Now the jury is wondering if the suit really is against Google — Apple, themselves brought it up, didn’t they? Thus the jury may be thinking: “If the suit is really against Google, then the penalties against Samsung should be zero or nearly so. Let Apple go sue Google directly and see how that works out.”
Let’s hope Apple’s lawyers didn’t screw this one up.
“MacDailyNews Take: Apple doesn’t compete for market share per se since Apple doesn’t target low-cost customers as they are not worth it. Not all customers are created equal. So, why do reporters continually measure Apple vs. competitors in the wrong way? Why don’t reporters compare Apple’s profit share to rivals? ”
Alternative Answer: It’s because REVENUE is money moving in the economy, especially for companies with smaller profit margins and PROFIT is primarily money left to a company after expenses such as Cost of Materials, logistics, etc. have been subtracted. Relatively ‘stagnant’ money especially for companies with HUGE cash reserves. In short REVENUE is a better guage of economic activity than PROFIT.