Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents The Almighty Buck The Courts Apple

Apple Wants Another $707 Million From Samsung 316

Posted by timothy
from the as-do-we-all dept.
angry tapir writes "A California jury may have awarded Apple more than US$1 billion in damages in late August when it triumphed over Samsung in a hard-fought case over smartphone and tablet patents, but the iPhone maker is coming back for more: late last week it asked for additional damages of $707 million. The request includes an enhanced award of $535 million for willful violation of Apple's designs and patents, as well as about $172 million in supplemental damages based on the fact that the original damages were calculated on Samsung's sales through June 30."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Wants Another $707 Million From Samsung

Comments Filter:
  • Squeezed for cash? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Quakeulf (2650167) on Monday September 24, 2012 @05:15AM (#41434453)
    I didn't think Apple was doing that badly that they have to litigate others for cash to stay relevant. Oh wait, maybe they are doing it to make the others strapped for cash! Or wait, maybe there isn't even a point in doing this. Maybe they should all hold hands and be happy instead. :3
    • by Nerdfest (867930) on Monday September 24, 2012 @05:58AM (#41434635)

      This is what happens when you give into a terrorist's demands. You get more demands, closely followed by more terrorists. Blame it on the patent system all you want, it existed for a long time without companies behaving like Apple.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by jbolden (176878)

        Bull. Infringement actions like this are typical there is nothing unusual here at all legally. Global scale and high degree of usage by consumers makes the numbers large. But really the only thing unusual about these particular infringement actions is you care about the products being disputed and are following the case.

        • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Monday September 24, 2012 @08:41AM (#41435439) Homepage Journal

          Blame it on the patent system all you want, it existed for a long time without companies behaving like Apple.

          Bull. Infringement actions like this are typical there is nothing unusual here at all legally.

          Uh, not bull, that's what he said. There's nothing unusual here at all, legally. That's the problem..

        • by mcgrew (92797) *

          Indeed. I had a friend (actually my ex-wife's brother in law) who worked in a factory. His boss would bring him a widget their competitor had come up with and ask "can we make these?" The first time they asked that he said "sure, but they'll sue for patent infringement." His boss replied "that's why we have a legal department." He said that often, you could build the exact same device and get around the patents by making it out of a different material.

    • by jbolden (176878) on Monday September 24, 2012 @06:53AM (#41434809) Homepage

      Samsung in 2011 did $42b in sales and $4.7b in profits. They aren't going to be strapped for cash. On the other hand an award that large would destroy the profitability of their Android strategy. It would turn infringement from a money maker to a money loser.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by aliquis (678370)

        Posting as myself since AC would be lame and I can stand for it:

        So the brand of the tards can single handely destroy the worlds biggest mobile maker by ridicilous patent claims?

        Awesome.

        As if there wasn't reason enough to think bad about the people buying Apple products. Or the actual Apple products. Or Apple.

        In all honesty though I assume they could raise their prices to afford paying for this or proper licenses, eventually losing part of their position on the market but if that's how it should be then fine

    • by shentino (1139071)

      Interestingly enough Samsung is alleging jury misconduct, and also perjury during voir dire.

      Since it was the jury foreman I foresee that either samsung is going to get a mistrial or apple will have had to do some serious bribing.

      And one particular jury foreman will hopefully

      Though ironically, how do we get rid of shills without booting conscentious jurors who believe in jury nullification?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24, 2012 @05:17AM (#41434463)

    Sorry to all the Apple fanboys out there, but it becomes increasingly hard to feel any sympathies for Apple. Seems that Apple's fame is slowly declining...

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24, 2012 @05:33AM (#41434543)

      Yup, I share your sentiment. Apple is increasingly becoming a downright scary company, Perhaps *all* their staff should watch those "think different" ads again. The company seems to be almost aiming for a Big Brother badge these days.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24, 2012 @07:41AM (#41435083)

        This recent behavior by Apple is no different than they've always acted. They've always been scary, they just haven't had the resources to be particularly dangerous until recently.

      • by Malc (1751)

        How is this any different to the way they behaved more than 20 years ago when they sued Microsoft over Windows [wikipedia.org]?

      • by GReaToaK_2000 (217386) on Monday September 24, 2012 @09:22AM (#41435819)

        It took this long for people to realize that Apple has never been nothing more than a cut-throat Capitalist company?

        Really? Steve Jobs was NEVER a Saint nor was he ever nothing more than Bill Gates (in his Microsoft days) with a "cool veneer".
        I'm sorry to all you Apple distortion field loving fanboys and girls out there but Steve was ALWAYS a vicious business man.
        The difference between Jobs and Gates (besides the obvious) is that Gates changed over time and became an amazing philanthropist. Even in Jobs’s dying days he was still cut throat, admirable if you’re a business person but that’s it.

        I’m tired of the rhetoric. Apple is just another company that since it’s driving force (Steve) is gone has been reduced to pissing matches with patents.

        I hope Samsung wins.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      i used to tell the army of people who ask nerds for advice on purchases to just buy apple because then i wouldnt have to rid them of spyware later. now that apple has taken the douche crown from microsoft, and microsoft has taken the oblivious crown from Sun, and oracle pulled an HP/Compaq/DEC on Sun, and ubuntu started bundling adware, and redhat is no longer relevant... and i intentionally have to break english grammatical protocol to emphasize each element in this never ending list in an annoying attempt

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Sorry to all the Apple fanboys out there, but it becomes increasingly hard to feel any sympathies for Apple. Seems that Apple's fame is slowly declining...

      Right, because 2 million iPhone 5 pre orders in 24 hours is *clearly* an indication of declining fame.

      I got news for you, the general public A) isn't aware of this litigation B) doesn't give a shit.

      I'm not going to debate the right or wrong merits of the litigation itself, but if you think this lawsuit has hurt Apple in the court of public opinion, you're not capable of looking at the issue objectively.

    • by Drakonblayde (871676) on Monday September 24, 2012 @06:45AM (#41434771)

      Sorry to all the Apple fanboys out there, but it becomes increasingly hard to feel any sympathies for Apple. Seems that Apple's fame is slowly declining...

      Right, because a stock price that's still over $700/share and 2 million pre orders for the iPhone 5 in 24 hours is clearly an indication of declining fame. Most people don't know about or care about this litigation. They just know Apple makes stuff they like. I don't like alot of the things Apple does as a company, but I like the products they make. I don't like the products that their competitors make, they don't fulfill my needs. So what am I going to do, refuse to buy Apple out of some sense of moral outrage? Sorry, not going to make myself less productive as a show of support for some other big mega-corp? Samsung is not some innocent bystander getting picked on by the big kid on the block. There's sin enough to go around for *all* players invovled in the smartphone market, so the moral reprehension is pretty much a wash for me. So in the end it boils down to who has the product I prefer to use. Those are the people who get my money.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Sorry to all the Apple fanboys out there, but it becomes increasingly hard to feel any sympathies for Apple. Seems that Apple's fame is slowly declining...

        Right, because a stock price that's still over $700/share and 2 million pre orders for the iPhone 5 in 24 hours is clearly an indication of declining fame.

        So you think mere sales figures are a good measure of fame? Sorry, wrong measure -- unless you also believe that Apple was a shitty, fameless company in the 80s and 90s and Microsoft the creme de la creme of software makers during that period...

      • by humanrev (2606607) on Monday September 24, 2012 @08:45AM (#41435473)

        I don't like the products that their competitors make, they don't fulfill my needs.

        Out of curiosity, what do you believe the iPhone can do that a similarly matched Android phone cannot? What do you, in your estimation, "need" that only an iPhone can satisfy? Is it functionality present in iOS or is it software which is exclusive to the iPhone?

    • by Swampash (1131503)

      Seems that Apple's fame is slowly declining...

      You say that in the week that Apple's share price tops USD700, making it not only the most valuable publicly-traded company in the world but worth comfortably more than number two and three combined?

    • by MtViewGuy (197597) on Monday September 24, 2012 @07:37AM (#41435069)

      The thing is that Apple could get scrutinized like the United Shoe Machinery Company was during the 20th Century. (For those who don't know, United Shoe was sued by the US government starting in the 1940's for abusing patent rights on shoe making machines to eliminate competitors. This litigation eventually wiped out the company.)

      I'm not sure if Apple wants to be in that position, given their enormous clout in the touchscreen computing device market with the iPhone and iPad.

    • by Issarlk (1429361) on Monday September 24, 2012 @07:46AM (#41435109)
      Give it 5 more years and Apple's fame will be gone. Steeve Jobs was intelligent at least but with his loss now Apple is just evil and stupid. Just look at the iOS6 maps fiasco, Jobs would never have let the iPhone5 ship with that junk in it.
  • bad looser (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24, 2012 @05:17AM (#41434467)

    If a company has to make profit by law-suits there is something fundamentally wrong with it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24, 2012 @05:23AM (#41434497)

    But hope that my action of replacing my broken 2007 MacBook Pro (yes, the Nvidia chip and out of warranty) with a PC will help send a message to Apple.

    No more Apple devices in my home.

    • by JackAxe (689361) on Monday September 24, 2012 @06:23AM (#41434695)
      I'm in a similar boat. I've been buying Macintoshes since the nineties and working on them professionally longer, but when it comes time to upgrade to a new portable workstation, I'm moving to something like HP's beasts.

      Since my current MacBook Pro 17" is still very capable, I'm cross-grading all of my pro-applications to Windows that don't have a multiplatform license and plan to be in Bootcamp fulltime before end of the year. This is easy for me, since I used PCs first back in the eighties and never abandoned them, even when I moved on to Macs fulltime -- I still build PCs for gaming and 3D work.

      Another area I'm dropping, which is a bit harder to chew on, is IOS development. I'm not going to bother renewing with Apple come next March; but having said that, I deal mostly with enterprise and I noticed a trend towards Android tablets now, so this makes it easier.

      This new Apple isn't a company I respect and care to support. It's going to be a bit tougher to get the wife off her Mac, but eventually it will happen.
      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        I've been buying Macintoshes since the nineties and working on them professionally longer, but when it comes time to upgrade to a new portable workstation, I'm moving to something like HP's beasts.

        Whatever you do, do not buy an HP. I could go into great detail as to why, but suffice to say that it took me over 24 hours on the phone to get a replacement for an EliteBook with a GPU with a known GPU die bonding problem. You'd be better off with almost anything else, except of course Sony, I hope you know better than that already.

    • It does (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Monday September 24, 2012 @07:02AM (#41434849)

      While an individual doesn't send a large message, every little bit helps and just because each individual message isn't large doesn't mean that a flood of them will be small.

      It also helps in that Apple is in a positive feedback loop of their stuff being popular because it is popular. Well, the less people who are seen with Apple products, the more it works to break that feedback loop.

      I certainly encourage anyone who is angered at Apple's business practices to find other devices. The good news is that it is perfectly doable. There's nothing Apple has I'm aware of that you can't find a workable alternative to.

      Now if you like the stuff Apple makes the best and don't care about their actions, fair enough, but "I can't find anything else," isn't a valid point. Android or Windows Mobile phones work real well, tons of companies will supply you with a computer at any price and quality point you wish and so on.

      So the parent has the right of it: If you are mad at Apple, don't buy their stuff. Better still, send them a polite e-mail, letting them know. Even better still, let others know why and encourage them to do the same (don't be pushy though).

  • by SiriusStarr (1196697) <SumStultusSedEsQ ... .com minus berry> on Monday September 24, 2012 @05:24AM (#41434501)
    They have to pay for the ex-Google Mappers somehow. It's either that or convince people to start renaming continents [tumblr.com].
    • by mathfeel (937008)

      They have to pay for the ex-Google Mappers somehow. It's either that or convince people to start renaming continents [tumblr.com].

      It seems someone at Apple is reading xkcd: http://what-if.xkcd.com/10/ [xkcd.com]
      And all those distorted map image makes sense once you realized Apple is mapping our dreams, Inception style.

  • by robbak (775424) on Monday September 24, 2012 @05:32AM (#41434539) Homepage

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120922171505170 [groklaw.net]

    The real news is Samsung's motion for JMOL or a new trial. This verdict is hopelessly inconsistent and compromised - the statements made by the jury foreman are hard to believe! - that there is no chance of it standing. If sane, Apple would admit that, argue that the verdict should be tossed in it's entirety, so the important points in Samsung's favor are lost as well, and keep it's powder dry for round 2. I'm not holding my breath for that, as they have shown a willingness to argue that the sky is green from day 1.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jbolden (176878)

      There is not going to be a new trial. I think Samsung was treated unfairly. On the other hand Samsung also engaged in serious misconduct during discovery.

      There are lots of problems with this filing as well. For example Courts have repeatedly denied a monopoly in the copyright context over the GUI design concepts that Apple seeks to protect here. See Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. In Apple v. Microsoft the court never ruled that GUI design concepts weren't protected. The ruled the exact oppo

      • by Rogerborg (306625)

        Samsung also engaged in serious misconduct during discovery.

        Such as?

        • by robbak (775424) on Monday September 24, 2012 @07:52AM (#41435145) Homepage

          He's referring to the side show where Apple claimed that Samsung should have guessed earlier than they did that Apple was going to take them to court, and begun preserving evidence. This is contradicted in that Apple also did not begin preserving evidence until after Samsung did. If Apple did not feel that it might take action, how was Samsung to guess? Crystal ball? Examining sheep's livers?
          As I said, a sideshow. Apple backed off as soon as the judge started making noises that Apple should be punished as well.

        • by jbolden (176878)

          Not preserving evidence that was likely to be needed at trial. Trying to game the system with the late drop of the F700. Those are the two I know of.

  • by Torinir (870836) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <rinirot>> on Monday September 24, 2012 @05:32AM (#41434541) Homepage Journal

    Apple might have a hard time asking for more money from that judgment when Samsung has valid claims which could lead to a retrial.

    http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-1990Samsung50and59motions.pdf [groklaw.net]

    Of note: the table of references point to cases of jury misconduct, even though the arguments by Samsung were redacted. Bet on this judgment being tossed out fast.

    • by jbolden (176878)

      I don't think so.

      1) Samsung engaged in misconduct during discovery.
      2) Samsung was unable to provide a sound basis for the drastic shifts in their design approach after the iPhone was released
      3) Some of the elements of copying, like icon styling are rather clear and none have been conceded to, which is likely what led the jury to draw the conclusion of intent. This happens all the time, X lies about his minor part in the crime so the jury decides to believe he's lying because he was a primary.

      That being

      • by robbak (775424)

        I don't think so.

        1) Samsung engaged in misconduct during discovery.

        This has been dealt with. Samsung started preserving evidence before Apple did.

        2) Samsung was unable to provide a sound basis for the drastic shifts in their design approach after the iPhone was released

        When you include all the phones, not just Apple's selection Samsung's 'before' and 'after' ranges are all rather similar.

        3) Some of the elements of copying, like icon styling are rather clear and none have been conceded to, which is likely what led the jury to draw the conclusion of intent. This happens all the time, X lies about his minor part in the crime so the jury decides to believe he's lying because he was a primary.

        Well, the icon stylings are standard things that all existed before Apple 'stole' them from previous designs.

        That being said I agree with Samsung the punishments effectively allowed Apple to misrepresent the evidence in their presentation. I'd like to see those things tossed.

        No real arguments there.
        Oh, look I've done the 'quote and deny' thing that generally tells me that a conversation is no longer worth reading Oh well.

        • by jbolden (176878)

          This has been dealt with. Samsung started preserving evidence before Apple did.

          Yes it was dealt with in the trial. I was actually more referring to the F700 evidence.

          When you include all the phones, not just Apple's selection Samsung's 'before' and 'after' ranges are all rather similar.

          I understand that's what Samsung claimed at trial. And no they weren't. If you look at the F700 it is rather clear that Samsung was chasing after Palm's theory of design, a PDA/phone mixture with calendaring being the

  • Obligatory Ice-T (Score:5, Insightful)

    by srussia (884021) on Monday September 24, 2012 @05:39AM (#41434577)
    "Don't hate the player, hate the game."

    The game being IP.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You are full of bullshit. Apple is abusing the system. I don't see Google suing over bing. I don't see Google trying to litigate competition out of the marketplace. And suing over gestures? And icons in a grid? And generally abusing software patents progressively making it impossible to write software without having to spend money on lawyers. The list goes on and on. So its notjust the game it the fucking player that is corrupt. Fuck apple. They won't see another recommendation from me until the

      • And icons in a grid?

        WHAT? No way. How about - Dungeon Master, 1987? That has Icons in a grid. A game of chess has bits you move about in a grid. I hope that patent wasn't given.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24, 2012 @06:06AM (#41434667)

      Why shouldn't we hate the players? The players spend millions upon millions lobbying to change the rules of the game in their favor, often at the expensive of innovation.

      I know it's fun to mindlessly spout clíchés, but they're not always true.

    • That statement is only used by abusers of the system and their fanboys.

      Don't hate the rapist, hate rape. Only a rapist would say that. The rest of the world hates both.

    • Re:Obligatory Ice-T (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Zero__Kelvin (151819) on Monday September 24, 2012 @06:55AM (#41434821) Homepage

      ""Don't hate the player, hate the game."

      This has always been a stupid statement based on a false dichotomy. There is absolutely no reason not to hate both.

      Disclaimer: I am posting from a Macbook; while I am not a fan of parts of the Apple company, their engineering is quite excellent.

      • You're quite clear from any accusation of moral contradiction if you bought it second hand.

        You did buy it second hand, right?
      • No particular criticism of Xero__Kelvin here, but:

        I am posting from a Macbook; while I am not a fan of parts of the Apple company, their engineering is quite excellent.

        This is a prefect excmple of why light regulation of companies does not work. The market simply won't make companies behave ethically. It doesn't matter if the company is unethical and evil, people will still buy their stuff.

    • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Monday September 24, 2012 @06:55AM (#41434823)

      Apple decided to go nuclear, and it is likely to backfire on them. While the patent system is broken for sure, most other large companies seemed to use stupid patents largely defensively. They'd patent everything under the sun so that if someone came after them, they could counter with thousands of patents and see what stuck. In terms of legit patents, they'd do cross licensing.

      Not Apple, they've decided to go nuclear on other players. Sue them for stupid amounts of money, declare nobody can make anything that looks like an Apple product, and so on. They raised the stakes, and thus things are getting nasty.

      So we sure can, and will, hate on Apple.

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        To be fair, Microsoft and Apple have both been in patent wars with each other and with the rest of us for a long time, Microsoft more than Apple. And it's been over stupid shit. Look and feel? the GUI? Windows? It's not all patents, either. Let's not forget Microsoft's sock puppet SCO (nee Caldera... I don't want to malign the actual pre-Caldera SCO, they were lame in other ways) attacking Linux over bogus copyright. Apple is frankly not a dramatic example of bad behavior, they're just asking for lots of mo

  • I've had quite a few iPods over the years and was thinking about an iPad but now Apple have joined Sony on my 'never buying a damned thing from them ever again because they're evil' list.
    • I'm glad I'm not the only one with that list :)

      Oh, don't forget ot stick Oracle on there too, just in case you're ever in the kind of position i your company where that matters. Sony hate their customers and randomly lash out out of spite, malice and perhaps ennui. Oracle truly despise their customers and seem to relish the opportunity to carefully devise and execute a plans to harm their customers with a persistence and glee that one can only marvel at.

      Sony provide the very much the consumer version of cus

  • by Damouze (766305) on Monday September 24, 2012 @05:44AM (#41434595)

    How about the millions of damages for the idea of a tablet computer, posthumously, to Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke?

    • I would be concerned if Apple ever get the patent for a remote microwave communications relay in geostationary orbit. (Clarke, 1945 [archive.org])

      The Clarke estate would have KITTENS.

  • This additional damages must have been linked to lawyer costs associated with the trial.
  • by darkat (697582) on Monday September 24, 2012 @06:39AM (#41434747)
    If I were a shareholder I would be quite worried about the (cr)Apple strategy. IMHO this is a clear signal of lack of innovative ideas. Innovation cannot be a continuos flow and they are reaching their limits. I doubt that the iphone 5 will be a planetary success because of the lack of real innovation in it. It's a sad black thing with infamous rounded corners. It's not appealing neither aestethically nor tecnologically. The competitors do at least the same and also much better. They appear on the descending path.
  • Swiss (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bloodhawk (813939) on Monday September 24, 2012 @07:11AM (#41434911)
    If they win maybe they can use the proceeds to pay the swiss railway. by the sounds of it apple believes in harsh penalty for wilful violation. Swiss Rail will be very happy to hear apple feels this way.
  • Why doesn't samsung just have the USPTO do a re-exam of the patent, its cheap and would possibly invalidate the patent.

  • For most of the guys, *court cases* got to be accepted. *Suing* was the only way that everybody stayed in line. You got out of line, you got *sued*. Everybody knew the rules. But sometimes, even if people didn't get out of line, they got sued. I mean, hits just became a habit for some of the guys. Guys would get into arguments over nothing and before you knew it, one of them was *bankrupt*. And they were suing each other all the time. Suing people was a normal thing. It was no big deal.

Gee, Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.

Working...