“Apple Inc is claiming that more than a quarter of Samsung Electronics’ $30.4 billion in U.S. smartphone and tablet sales result from copying of the iPhone and iPad or infringe on other patents, a damages expert for the U.S. company said on Monday,” Dan Levine and Edwin Chan report for Reuters.
“The Silicon Valley company is demanding up to $2.75 billion of damages from its Korean rival, which includes profits lost to infringing Samsung gadgets. However, Samsung attorneys argued that Apple’s evidence was not sufficient to recoup such an award,” Levine and Chan report. “The Korean company sold more than 87 million mobile devices from mid-2010 to March 2012, according to documents displayed before the jury.”
Levine and Chan report, “Accountant Terry Musika, citing Samsung records and testifying as an Apple expert witness, estimated that $8.16 billion in revenue, or 22.7 million of those total unit sales over that two-year period, came from products that infringed Apple patents, such as the first Galaxy S smartphone in July 2010. Samsung typically does not reveal its sales in the United States… Samsung argued that Apple, which was struggling to keep up with demand for the iPhone 4 from July to October of 2010, did not have the capacity to have delivered on those additional sales.”
Read more in the full article here.
Related article:
Design patent expert: Samsung’s prospects dim vs. Apple in patent infringement trial – August 13, 2012
“did not have the capacity to have delivered on those additional sales.”
And what exactly does that have to do with the price of tea in Korea?
The more sales, the higher chances that a jury/judge will see that Apple lost sales to Samsung, assuming that Samsung is found to have infringed Apple’s intellectual property.
Doesn’t give some company permission to copy another just because they may not have been able to deliver on those additional sales! What phony, self-serving and twisted logic! Nathan Thurm must be the lead attorney for Shamdung.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/273989
If the production had been diverted from Samsung’s copy’s of the iPhone to iPhone parts, then more volume could have been realized. But, Samsung was competing with Apple and available resource were used. At least, the way I would see it.
The point of Samsung’s argument is that the damages should be lower because Apple wouldn’t have sold similar volumes as did Samsung’s infringing products due to alleged Apple production problems. In short, they’re claiming that Apple didn’t lose sales as a result of infringement because they didn’t have enough product available in the pipeline for sale during the period in question.
It’s a BS argument from an ethical perspective, but it’s a legal one. Without knowing more about the details of the trial, it sure sounds like Samsung’s now trying to sway the jury into leniency of penalty as opposed to dismissal.
Apparently Samsung decided to take advantage of and relieve Apple’s pent up demand..
Is that sort of like when I break into your safe deposit box and take advantage of the unused jewelry?
Samsung argued that Apple, which was struggling to keep up with demand for the iPhone 4 from July to October of 2010, did not have the capacity to have delivered on those additional sales.
Samsung’s statement is fascinating. They’re talking as if they have ALREADY lost the lawsuit to Apple and are now haggling over damages due. LOVE IT.
soooo screwed! 😆