“With their California trial approaching fast, Apple and Samsung made filings during the last few hours that shed light on what’s at stake and on why the parties haven’t been able to settle their dispute so far,” Florian Mueller reports for FOSS Patents. “Let’s start with Apple’s damages claim as it is summarized in the public redacted version of its initial trial brief.”
“Samsung adopted as its number one goal to [redacted]’ in the smartphone and tablet markets, and it chose to compete by copying Apple. Samsung’s infringing sales have enabled Samsung to overtake Apple as the largest manufacturer of smartphones in the world. Samsung has reaped billions of dollars in profits and caused Apple to lose hundreds of millions of dollars through its violation of Apple’s intellectual property. Apple conservatively estimates that as of March 31, 2012, Samsung has been unjustly enriched by about [redacted; presumably $2 billion] and has additionally cost Apple about $500 million in lost profits. Apple also conservatively estimates that it is entitled to over $25 million in reasonable royalty damages on the proportionately small set of remaining sales for which it cannot obtain an award of Samsung’s profits or Apple’s own lost profits, for a combined total of $2.525 billion.”
Mueller reports, “This damages claim relates to past infringement. If the court granted Apple’s request for a permanent injunction against Samsung, infringement would end. If there are any infringements that the court identifies, but the court doesn’t grant Apple injunctive relief to stop those infringements, then the court will have to award Apple a reasonable royalty going forward — which has the effect of a compulsory license.”
These are the per-unit royalties that Apple calculated for its different intellectual property rights-in-suit:
• $2.02 for the “overscroll bounce” (or “rubber-banding”) ‘318 patent
• $3.10 for the “scrolling API” ‘915 patent
• $2.02 for the “tap to zoom and navigate” ‘163 patent
• $24 for use of any of Apple’s design patents or trade dress rights”
Mueller reports, “Indeed, we are talking about features that make an iPhone an iPhone and set it apart from a feature phone or from what today’s Android phones would be like if Google had not decided at some point to abandon its original plans for a more BlackBerry-style device and copy the iPhone operating software. And as high as those royalty rates may seem at first sight, Apple would much prefer an injunction over that per-unit royalty. Product differentiation is more valuable to Apple than compulsory licensing.”
Much more in the full article – highly recommended – here.
Wow! It surely hurt Samsung but some of the mentioned patent infringement are also used by other Android OEM but why only Samsung and not directly attacking Google?
Samsung is the biggest . Samsung most directly ripped off Apple design. If we were talking about handbags or a watch, the early Galaxy phones would be called “knock-offs”. Google doesn’t sell Android so it’s hard to financially punish Google over ill gotten gains as with the $ 2B they are asking from Samsung. If Apple wins a few key cases they will be able take down every other maker of Android phones, and then Google itself.
The problem with directly suing Android, which supposedly is an ‘Open Source’ OS, is getting money out of it. You can have bits of it removed, which may well be a practical approach. But you can’t get any financial redress.
Therefore, you go after those who have used this ‘Open Source’ software for profit. You bite them hard. That means Apple gains most by going after all the companies using the offending Android ripped-off technology.
Another reason it’s a good idea to take this approach is that Android has already been established across many devices and companies. It has an established market that is likely to continue on into the future. Therefore, Apple will be paid royalties for every copy of Android on into the future devices that contains the offending ripped off features. Microsoft has already succeeded with this strategy.
[And yes, I agree that Android is ‘Open Source’ in name only. Google keep their clutches tightly around the code and only make public what code they personally approve. That’s NOT how actual open source projects work.]
Apple should be expelled from China.I hope Korea and China ban Apple from their land.
You, sir, are a complete idiot!
=:~)
So you are happy to condone the outright theft of other people’s properties?
How about you email me all your bank account details so I can just help myself?
And what, exactly, does China have to do with anything?
They just manufacture Apple products.
Your lack of intelligence is truly breathtaking. Now run along, I think your mommy wants to bath you ready for bedtime.
Oh look we have another Troll….
How cute.
Let’s see how out of this world you can go Downtoearth.
We’ll just forget it,………. with the statement you made your already to far gone.
Apple should be expelled from China. I hope Korea and China ban Apple from their land.
How incredibly incoherent! Did you forget to take your pills today?
I for one would ENJOY Apple getting the hell out of China: Criminal Nation. Who needs the headache of being ripped off by the self-destructive Chinese culture from left, right and center? I’ve been ranting for Apple to dump that hellhole for years!
As for Korea: Please Apple, dump Samsung! They’re blatant crooks. Who needs that grief either?
Otherwise, I have good impressions of Korea! It’s generally a great culture. Korea likes Apple and Apple likes Korea. I’m happy to have my country help out by keeping the loons in North Korea at bay.
Therefore… take your meds and get some rest. You’ll feel better in the morning. 😆
What’s a few billion between business partners.
Can you say “Fsck you Samdung?” See, I knew you could.
This is what’s so frustrating with our legal system today- it takes so friggin’ long to obtain any actionable solution, that people/companies/etc would just rather ‘settle’ than go on with litigation. Justice is not served in these cases- Samsung ripped off Apple’s IP, and all they have to do is pay some money. Granted, $2.5 billion is no chump change, but I can reasonably guarantee that they’ve made MUCH more than that by copying whatever they can and selling it under the Samsung brand. So what’s the message going forward? That you can steal ideas and products, make large sums of money, but just tuck a small % of your profits away because you’ll have to pay just a little in the future. And in the meantime, no rightful legal precedent is advanced- what should happen is Samsung should be required to stop all production and sales of current products which violate Apple’s IP, forward all reasonable profits made from said products to Apple, and be restricted from selling products in the mobile smartphone/tablet market for some number of years. If a judgement like this were handed down, then it may make big companies take notice in the future, before they decide to rip off IP. Just my opinion.
Sounds about fair to me.
Is it cheaper to hire some guys to take Samsung executives out permanently one by one?
To name a few…
(1) Vice Chairman & CEO – Dr. Oh-Hyun Kwon
(2) President & CEO – Samsung Electronics America – Yangkyu Kim
(3) Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) – Dale Sohn
(4) President and CEO of Samsung Semiconductor Inc. (SSI) – Charles Bae
(5) Samsung Austin Semiconductor (SAS) – Dr. Woosung Han
(6) Head, Corporate Strategy Office –
Gee-Sung Choi
(7) President & CFO, Corporate Management Office, Samsung Electronics –
Ju-Hwa Yoon
(8) Board of Directors – Attorney at Law, Kim & Chang Law Office – Dong-Min Yoon
(9) Board of Directors – In-Ho Lee
(10) Board of Directors – Han-Joong Kim
(11) Board of Directors – Byeong-Gi Lee
…
Joking aside(I hope), considering recent events, that’s in bad taste.
The bully will be bitten. Go Samsung Go!
There’s absolutely no way Apple gets anywhere close to this. As always I’m happy to eat my words but I’m sure I won’t need to.
“Product differentiation is more valuable to Apple than compulsory licensing.”
Basically, Apple doesn’t shy away from competition and would rather Gaggle and Samdung stop ripping off their IP.
Is that to much to ask? What is the point of a patent and going through the process if anyone can just rip you off and get away with it?
2.5 Billion is a drop in the bucket for recovering lost profit and the expense of development. Like Apple, I’d be happier if they paid the damages and removed all the infringing design and IP from their products and design and develop their own shit. Screw the licensing.
If they were granted a patent by our government and others, then what part of the patent definition is hard to interpet.
patent
noun |ˈpatnt|
1 a government authority to an individual or organization conferring a right or title, esp. the sole right to make, use, or sell some invention
F’u both Samsung and Google!
Was at the Samdung store just yesterday. Just to check it out. It was a complete copy of the Apple store right down to all the workers wearing a blue Apple like top.
Saw a device that I would have paid the $699 asking price. Was NOT a phone or any other device that Apple makes. Am I buying it? NO. Never will buy another Samdung fridge, TV, phone, computer or anything with a visible Samdung logo.
Wish Apple would make this one device though….I’d snap it up in an instant.
At last!
Some meat on the bones.
Check out CNET – they’re choking in disbelief. It warms my cockles.
Got a link? Cnet is too huge to go browsing through looking for this one.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57478619-37/apple-samsung-you-owe-us-$2.5b-in-damages/
It’s not a particularly controversial or ‘choking’ article. But CNET have been vehement Samsung butt lickers. They chose… poorly.