Samsung made way more than $1B by infringing. If Samsung was charged per the directions it would have been at least +$2B fine.
They ignored instruction 35 in part and 53 in whole. The wording they ignored was the same in both instructions and was as follows:
The foreman of the jury had this to say in a post trial interview regarding damages: "We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," and "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."
This is another reason I think 22 hours is too short a time period. How exactly do you work out the effect of the infringement upon Apple and how do you come to a damages award that compensates Apple without punishing Samsung? It must be a nightmare to try and work out potential lost sales across all the devices found to have infringed. That is hard enough on its own let along working out validity as well. I think it should have been split. One trial to rule on validity and then another trial to work out infringement of those patents found valid in the first trial, this trial was too large in scope for any jury to come to a well informed decision.
Samsung made way more than $1B by infringing. If Samsung was charged per the directions it would have been at least +$2B fine.
Like they say, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
If the SGS3 is "fugly", I think consumers dig fugly.
The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there.
– If the claimed invention was already patented or described in a printed publication anywhere in the world before the date of conception of the claimed invention. A reference is a “printed publication” if it is accessible to those interested in the field, even if it is difficult to find;
Another update at groklaw http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963.
Here is why they discounted the prior art:
Yet instruction 31 talks about prior art and this is the significant snippet:
This is a huge misunderstanding on how prior art works by the jury. What the foreman is saying is because the software is cannot run on both devices (the Apple device and the device in evidence) the prior art claim is invalid. The instruction states that as long as the invention was described (so not even a working demonstration) then the patent should be invalidated because it has prior art.
Of course if that is a requirement for prior art then surely that would mean that Samsung cannot be found to have infringed because it would not be 'interchangeable' as the foreman put it.
This explains how they ignored the prior art because none of the evidence would have worked on the Apple device so with one blow they managed to discount all of the prior art.
The link has more detail with the full interview as well as the instruction in whole.
Another update at groklaw http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963.
Here is why they discounted the prior art:
Yet instruction 31 talks about prior art and this is the significant snippet:
This is a huge misunderstanding on how prior art works by the jury. What the foreman is saying is because the software is cannot run on both devices (the Apple device and the device in evidence) the prior art claim is invalid. The instruction states that as long as the invention was described (so not even a working demonstration) then the patent should be invalidated because it has prior art.
Of course if that is a requirement for prior art then surely that would mean that Samsung cannot be found to have infringed because it would not be 'interchangeable' as the foreman put it.
This explains how they ignored the prior art because none of the evidence would have worked on the Apple device so with one blow they managed to discount all of the prior art.
The link has more detail with the full interview as well as the instruction in whole.
Like they say, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
If the SGS3 is "fugly", I think consumers dig fugly.
I've had a bunch of people I know that normally don't know or care jack about tech stuff come up to me and ask me about Samsung phones- and of course I've shown them my SGS3.Like they say, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
What sort of logic is this? Trade ins of older phones (especially those that Apple has on its ban list) vs. new sales of the SGS3 aren't mutually exclusive.So who should we believe - the NY Post, or the head of of a trade-in company?
Samsung phone trade-ins have trade-ins surge over 50% since verdict. Resale value of Samsung phones have plummeted ahead of the iPhone 5. "I think consumers in general could be shying away from purchasing these devices going forward. Some people are panicking,"
- Anthony Scarsella, chief gadget officer at Gazelle.com.
So who should we believe - the NY Post, or the head of of a trade-in company?
New tech comes out, and the value of old tech declines. I don't think the jury's decision is the cause of that. That's perfectly normal.Resale value of Samsung phones have plummeted ahead of the iPhone 5.
So who should we believe - the NY Post, or the head of of a trade-in company?
None as they both are idiots. Really, only an idiot would think this will affect anything. Idiots.Samsung phone trade-ins have trade-ins surge over 50% since verdict. Resale value of Samsung phones have plummeted ahead of the iPhone 5. "I think consumers in general could be shying away from purchasing these devices going forward. Some people are panicking,"
- Anthony Scarsella, chief gadget officer at Gazelle.com.
So who should we believe - the NY Post, or the head of of a trade-in company?
Why would they be trading in Samsung phones? Do they somehow think that this decision is going to affect them or that they might be liable in some way?
Color me strangely amused as that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
New tech comes out, and the value of old tech declines. I don't think the jury's decision is the cause of that. That's perfectly normal.
I'd believe the reporter, over someone who's making money off of trade ins, and could by trying to talk the value down.
Shoot the messenger whining. You didn't even read the article. It's about the SGS3, not random trade-ins. It cites multiple sources, even quotes them. Oh, but you cited some guy's website about something that really has nothing to do with new sales of the SGS3.From the post? They bill themselves as a gossip rag, you know. When was their last headline about aliens landing in NY?
HA, that actually would be legal. It's also legal to write a check on virtually *anything*. Like a five-ton concrete slab. It'd be awesome seeing how Apple would cash it.is this legal?
http://en.paperblog.com/samsung-pays-apple-1-billion-sending-30-trucks-full-of-5-cents-coins-294795/
sending 1 billion of 5 cents. lol
Why would they be trading in Samsung phones? Do they somehow think that this decision is going to affect them or that they might be liable in some way?
Color me strangely amused as that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
It might affect trade in values if your phone just got put on Apple's 'ban' list. That's the only logical reason this would affect anything in that sense.
None as they both are idiots. Really, only an idiot would think this will affect anything. Idiots.
I don't think it has anything to do with Apple going after anyone. It's just that if you own something, and suddenly it's 'banned' it could have a negative effect on the consumer. Like people may think the phone will no longer receive support from Samsung or something. Sure, it's all about a perception, (which with consumers means a lot) not what will actually be 'done' by any company.I doubt that Apple will be going after people selling old phones on ebay or craigslist, but then again some people might actually think that they would.
According to your myriad of posts in this forum, everyone is an idiot. Except you of course.
An anger management class would probably do you a lot of good.
"Concerns run that Samsung smartphones may get inferior software updates and a degraded touch experience"
HA, that actually would be legal. It's also legal to write a check on virtually *anything*. Like a five-ton concrete slab. It'd be awesome seeing how Apple would cash it.