13
Aug
iphone4-vs-galaxy-s-head_thumb

Apple's trial against Samsung, which resumed today, has hit another milestone – Apple rested its case against Samsung today after a somewhat shocking testimony from a financial expert who indicated that the Cupertino manufacturer may have lost up to 2 Million device sales (including both iPhones and iPads) because of Samsung's alleged infringement. This testimony came after last week's revelation that Apple asked Samsung for up to $30 per smartphone and $40 per tablet device for patent licensing.

The report, figured by CPA Terry Musika, relied on three main number sets: how much revenue Samsung brought in with the accused products, royalty fees based on infringed patents, and any profits Apple may have lost to Samsung sales. In total, Musika estimated that Apple may have lost up to $488.8 million in sales alone. Musika did however note that there are some inconsistencies in Samsung's own data and the way income is shifted for tax purposes.

Taking all three number sets into account, Musika estimated damages between $2.5 billion and $2.75 billion. Of course Samsung's team did not sit on its hands when given the chance to cross-examine – Attorney Bill Price got Musika to admit that there are various other ways damages could be split up or calculated (as The Verge notes, Apple paid Musika's team about $1.75M to reach the conclusions reported today). Price also noted that in the initial period following the iPhone 4's launch, supply was far outmatched by demand, making it difficult to calculate lost sales because the device's market was not in balance.

After Apple rested its case, Samsung's team asked Judge Lucy Koh (with a brief written statement) to go ahead and grant a judgment for Samsung based on the idea that Apple had failed to prove its case. Of course, Koh denied this request, adding "I never get written briefings on Rule 50. Ever."

image

In other Apple v Samsung news, Judge Koh ruled that Samsung's international Galaxy S, Galaxy SII, and Galaxy Ace are to be excluded from the trial, meaning jurors are no longer obligated to decide whether the three devices infringe Apple's patents.

Samsung was granted this after an hour-long argument, in which it posited that Apple hadn't provided a reason why the three devices should be included. After all, Samsung noted, the three products were not available for direct sale in the US by Samsung, and since the current trial is exclusively concerned with devices sold in the US, Apple had the burden of proof in arguing why the devices should be considered in the first place.

While – as The Verge rightly notes – losing three of around 20 accused devices from the case isn't an enormous blow to Cupertino, it is no doubt a significant gesture.

Source: The Verge (1, 2)

Liam Spradlin
Liam loves Android, design, user experience, and travel. He doesn't love ill-proportioned letter forms, advertisements made entirely of stock photography, and writing biographical snippets.

  • sahilm

    As much as I love Android, Samsung is going to lose this trial. They've submitted key evidence late, and have really pissed off the judge.

    • Me

      I've got the same feeling, though I hope they would win.... (not a fan of neither, just slightly hating on Apple more)

    • http://btwnworlds.tumblr.com/ Lou G

      It's grounds for appeal then. A judge cannot be biased. Yes, Samsung has really 'pissed off' a judge, but she's also letting Apple win many arguments based on that it seems like. I would not be surprised if that's the argument for appeal.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alexander-Drizzy-Rojas/100000186636833 Alexander Drizzy Rojas

        A judge can be biased, they're human beings.

        • Bariman43

          He meant she's not allowed to be biased.

        • Kellic

          Umm no actually they can't. If they are shown to have a
          biased opinion they need to excuse themselves from the trial.

          • Tomi Golob

            Doesn't work that way...

          • http://twitter.com/yellowspyder Spyder Ryder

            Get real. Judges are human beings. They are all biased in their thinking, just like you and I are. Some just cover it up better, but they all lack a computer's objectivity. There is no such thing as complete objectivity in the human brain... it leans one way or the other.

          • http://codytoombs.wordpress.com/ Cody Toombs

            You're getting 'conflict of interest' mixed up with 'bias'

            Bias is expected, it's a fact of humanity; it's fairness that is legally mandatory. If a judge acts in a way that prevents one party from having a fair chance in a trial, then it's a real problem.

            You're thinking of a 'conflict of interest', which has more to do with the influence of external factors. David and I seem to disagree on Lucy Koh's situation, but I believe she does have a conflict of interests and should recuse herself. Either way, that's what appeals are for, and I think we all know that almost any decision is going to leave both companies unhappy.

        • http://btwnworlds.tumblr.com/ Lou G

          Yes, when she's not sitting on the bench she can be as biased as you and I. On the bench, she can NOT be biased at all. Otherwise she should have excluded herself. She's basically given Samsung all the grounds for appeal they need if they lose.

        • SebaKL

          Many of them in fact are.

      • Tomi Golob

        Yes but the judge can deny a request for appeal... :/

        • Southrncomfortjm

          Not true. Judge Koh doesn't control whether Samsung can appeal and she wouldn't hear the appeal either. A different court handles all of that.

          Also, the jury makes the final decision on this case. They decide whether Samsung or Apple infringed and how much each owes the other in damages.

        • http://btwnworlds.tumblr.com/ Lou G

          A judge can, yes, not this judge unless she's apart of the appellate court.

    • http://profiles.google.com/mechanizedapathy Shawn Brandel

      Judge is a cunt anyway.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/52RMHX6AKKSZ75OKTJYQQWLRVU DCMAKER

        damn skippy

    • Kellic

      Umm if you had been paying attention the judge is pissed off at both.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1534593949 Vinny Tuzeo

    LOL! It's because apple users are too stupid to even realize what is and isn't an iphone/ipad. i was getting a zagg screen on my s2 when some dude pointed at it and asked me if i liked my iphone 4s... UH what? this is a samsung s2 dude...you know, a good phone. This has happened MANY times.

    I believe AP reported a few days ago that Android sales are through the roof where iphone/ipad sales are dropping. The revelation is upon us.. soon they will realize... "what!? Apple is overpriced crap?! HOW CAN THIS BEEEE!!!!????"

    to which we all will all point and laugh.

    • http://www.facebook.com/lucyparanormal Daniel Tiberius

      I'll definitely agree that a lot of iPhone people just want an iPhone because it's an iPhone and can't really tell the difference between most smartphones. It's ridiculous that Samsung would have to pay anything because someone wasn't paying attention to their $200+ dollar purchase. I do agree that they did make their device look similar to iPhones in that first generation of galaxy devices, but for Samsung to lose 100% in this trial would just be stupid. Make them pay for the rubber band patent and maybe a few others, but not because they have a rectangle with colorful icons.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/52RMHX6AKKSZ75OKTJYQQWLRVU DCMAKER

        reminds me of high school with all the dumbass kids has to have an ipod even though an iRiver or whatever it was called had more features and cheaper lol

      • Kaushik

        why should they pay for the rubber band patent either? Did they copy the code that did it? No.

        • Justin

          I think the problem with the "rubber band" patent is Apple was granted the patent based on the visual appearance aspect, much like all the other bullsh*t surrounding their icon patents.. "Rounded corners" its mind boggling.

    • http://twitter.com/ToysSamurai Toys Samurai

      >> LOL! It's because apple users are too stupid to even realize what is and isn't an iphone/ipad.

      Laugh all you want, but this is exactly what Apple is arguing -- they just didn't dare to spell out that their core audience are some dumb a**. Seriously, the whole business model Apple builds is to make stupid people buy their overly priced high tech products. They KNOW that many of their users won't ever figure out how to use a 3/4 buttons setup like most Android phones do, so they intentionally reduced the number of button on an iPhone to just 1 button so that it does all kinds of thing -- as long as you press it multiple times until you get what you want. Of course, from our Android users' perspective, we will never understand why it's so hard to understand a "Back" button is for going back one screen, and a "Home" button is for going to the home.

    • Drayon

      agree on people confusing phones with an iphone.
      I've even gotten a few people asking if my HTC one X was an iphone...

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1368032580 James E. Burkett

      If Anyone asks you, while looking at your GS2, about your "iPhone", they are flat out uneducated. You can hold an iPhone up to me along-side ANY other phone and I can tell which one is the iPhone, and which is not, in seconds. All you have to do is look for the Circular button on the bottom with a square on it. No, not a rectangular button, or a trapezoidal button... No one with any experience with telephones could possibly mistake any phone for an iPhone. It's just a well-recognized phone so everyone suddenly thinks "iPhone" if they are (what?) uneducated.

  • http://twitter.com/physicalist09 Physicalist

    Why don't they claim that every device Samsung sold is a lost sale for them?!

    • Bariman43

      Because that would give away the fact Apple is doing this to silence the competition and not because they believe Samsung cost them money.

  • VonLaserface

    This will sit in appeals for decades no matter what the verdict is.

  • http://twitter.com/bragzter Bradley Larcher

    That's all BS. How much did Apple pay that expert to come on the stand and give that biased and misleading analysis. Apple must feel that the iPhone is the best thing since sliced bread. Android is a sweeter OS and iOS is boring. Consumers are beginning to realize that and are choosing what's better.

    That so call expert just made my point even clearer that Apple believes that it should be only device a consumer can buy and won't stop til that happens. I truly hope justice prevails at the end of the trial, and Samsung walks away with minimum damage.

    • Eye4Detail

      According to the article, Apple paid $1.75 million for this testimony. Give me half that and I'll testify that I've seen pigs flying around bigfoot's head while he was riding a pink elephant.

      • Zaeem Shahzad

        What, no unicorns? :P

        • http://twitter.com/qu4ttr0 Drew

          for a hundred bucks and a six pack Ill talk about when I saw the Nahrwal bacon

  • Bariman43

    I hope neither of them win. In fact, I'm waiting for the judge to get so pissed at both companies that she decides to throw the case out. No "damages" should be paid for this stupid, wasteful, pointless, childish trial. Besides, it's lose-lose for consumers. If Samsung wins, other companies might think they can get away with ugly, uninspired phone designs, and Samsung may no longer attempt to make pretty phones like the Galaxy Nexus and S3. If Apple wins, other companies might think they can use their patents to troll the other companies and win.

    • Bariman43

      Also, allow me to troll: Apple's mad because 2 million people decided not to buy an overpriced phone and instead go with the cheaper option.

      Sorry, it's an obligation of mine.

      • thatGuy

        I wouldn't say cheaper. When Launched the subsidized and unsubsidized prices of the Galaxy Nexus and Galaxy SII, SIII were on par with the iPhones.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/52RMHX6AKKSZ75OKTJYQQWLRVU DCMAKER

          yea but Galaxy phones have better hardware and are cheaper be for that...marginally

  • Wade

    Should the article title be "billion" not "million"?

    • Bariman43

      No, it's million.

    • http://profiles.google.com/liamname Liam Spradlin

      They're claiming that the device sales lost totaled 2 million, while overall monetary damages allegedly totaled in the billions.

    • http://richworks.in Richie

      It's 2 million devices not $2million in sales revenue. How on earth can one third of the total population own a Galaxy S smartphone? :)

    • Wade

      Thanks all just was a little confusing in the writing.

  • Kellic

    Think I might swing past an Apple store this weekend and spit on their window.

    • Bariman43

      And what exactly is that going to solve? What point could you possibly be proving by being a disgusting, inconsiderate person who spits on stuff he doesn't like in the manner of a camel?

      • JustTrollin69

        I can't believe you took his comment so literal.

        If it needs to be spelled out for you, he was just joking, while pointing out his disgust towards Apple.

        Chill.

      • http://twitter.com/MrYuzhai *Certified_geek™

        i agree - less spitting. more shitting in their store instead.

    • Kenny O

      The Apple store here gives me the creeps.

    • SebaKL

      While you at it, why not walk in and ask if they have any of the cool Samsung S3?

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/52RMHX6AKKSZ75OKTJYQQWLRVU DCMAKER

        hahaha nice!!!!

    • http://twitter.com/MrYuzhai *Certified_geek™

      spit on their window? you should take a dump on their genius bar.

  • http://twitter.com/Xeneize480 Xeneize480

    Fuck You and all their apple idiot users lol

  • Kenny O

    Since this is an Android blog, I would imagine most people here choose Android over iOS, because they prefer one to the other. Soooo, if Samsung didn't exist we would still have never bought an iPhone. And as for non tech savy (read: most), sure someone might see a similar device at a glance and mistake it for an iPhone but I can't believe someone would actually intend to buy an iPhone and mistakenly buy another one.

    • SebaKL

      I know, right ?
      I mean, from a 20 meters distance, judging by the gestures (swiping and all), color and size, I could mistake Samsung for iPhone and vice versa. But when I'm in the store, the word SAMSUNG on the phone itself, or even the box, would be clue enough to make me realize, I AM NOT buying an iPhone.
      I can understand people who confuse Panasonic with Pensonic, but Apple - Samsung... really ?

      • Matthew Fry

        I can easily tell the difference. For one thing, Samsung owners rarely have a pink case, and for the other, Samsung screens are generally much larger and brighter.

      • John O’Connor

        Not to mention the fact that every store an apple product is sold in (besides their apple store obviously) has a dedicated floor space or section for apple products. you would never see an iphone for sale next to a samsung or any other product.

  • Freak4Dell

    At nearly $2 million for just one witness, I gotta wonder how much Apple has spent on this case so far. I'm also wondering about how they came to that amount as a fair payment for his team's time. Even at a few hundred bucks an hour, that's either a really big team, or they spent a ton of hours manipulating these numbers. Hopefully the jury got to see that information, and maybe they'll just ignore his testimony based on the fact that it was more than likely purchased.

    • Wilks73

      Especially when they could be better investing that money innovating. However, Apple has realised they are losing sales, not because Samsung ripped off their designs, but because Android is open source and Google is able to incorporate the innovative ideas that come from the custom ROM community in future versions of Android, something that Apple can only dream of in their closed environment. Apple has to try and slow the growth of this Android beast and the only way they can seem to do this is through litigation.

  • Zaeem Shahzad

    Don't go over to Engadget for this news. There are a whole bunch of Apple fanboys on Engadget. Hurray for Android Police! :)

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=714859472 Rajvir Singh

      Now I will, just to hunt some iFags and set them STRAIGHT.

      • liveTexas

        Your choice of words are NOT appreciated. Don't Hate on Gays, please.

        • jaysann22

          By your logic its ok to hate on Apple advocates but not gays? Take your political correctness and hypocrisy elsewhere.

  • Tee

    This latest decision by the judge just drops off the base for the rest of the case. The original SGS was the starting point of all this, wasn't it?

    • http://codytoombs.wordpress.com/ Cody Toombs

      The International versions were dropped, not the carrier specific versions. The reason is that the international versions were never marketed to the USA, nor were they ever actively distributed to this market. Obviously people in the USA could get them, but realistically, they had to be purchased off-contract and usually from specialty websites rather than brick and mortar stores. The point is, Samsung never tried to sell the international versions in the USA, therefore, nobody can fault them for infringement for the few that were sold here.

      To be fair, this decision is pretty insignificant. The international versions probably make up about 1 in every 10,000 that were sold in the US. I suspect Samsung is more interested in having them thrown out because it means they'll have less work in the case itself, not that it would save any substantial amount in the final decision.

      • Kaf

        LOL...
        "The international versions probably make up about 1 in every 10,000 that were sold in the US"
        This must be a joke, right?

        • http://codytoombs.wordpress.com/ Cody Toombs

          Why must this be a joke? If anything, I'm possibly over-estimating how many of the international versions were sold in the US. Thanks to the court case, sales figures are public, feel free to look at Exhibit E http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1286669/Apple_v_Samsung_US_sales_numbers.pdf

          Just to cover some numbers and back up my assertion. As of mid-December 2011, Samsung had sold 30 million SGS and SGS2 handsets worldwide (ref: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2394782,00.asp#fbid=yJL_Tc-aX7ll PCMag). Based on the sales figures from that chart, approx 7.152 million US variants of the SGS had been sold (across 7 carriers) and another 1.722 million US variants of the SGS2 (across 4 carriers) for a total of 8.874 million units in just the US market. That means the US variants made up nearly 1/3 of all SGS and SGS2 sales, the rest of the planet consumed the other 2/3. Based on those numbers, my completely ballpark-ish estimate would amount to about 900 of the international version being sold in the US.

          Officially, the i9000 (SGS) and Ace were never distributed to the US, which is why the lines are blank. I'm not sure why the i9100 (SGS2) isn't even in the list while the other two are. All told, the international versions were never officially sold in the US and therefore the only ones that were purchased here had to be imported by 3rd parties (which Samsung can't be held responsible for when the case only covers products that Samsung made direct efforts to sell in the US). The only way to get the international version in the US was to pay full price (or usually a bit more) or pay the cost of having one shipped over from another country. A few companies resold them through Amazon and Buy.com, but both of those sites automatically recommend purchasing the cheaper (carrier-locked) US variants.

          I really don't know what you're calling into question (perhaps you could have been more specific), but my guess can't be too far off. The only people who were likely to buy the international version are regular globe-trotters (who would have bought the phone in another country) or the geeks who couldn't wait for the phone to launch locally (on AT&T or T-Mobile).

          Sorry, I know this was a longer post than necessary, but I took the time to add up sales figures and get references that I figured other people would find interesting in their own right.

    • Matthew Fry

      The International version were dropped *because this is a US court and a US case.* If they want to accuse them of infringement internationally, they need to do it in each specific country. The fact that the court allowed them so far is ridiculous.

  • http://omgdroid.com/ Tony Simons

    Great article, Liam.

    The brains of a good lawyer never cease to amaze me.

  • http://twitter.com/Pascalwb Pascal

    It is like I have shop with apples but my neighbor open shop with oranges. So I lost customers. WTF?

    • Thys

      And not because they have a different taste or another colour, but because they are round.

  • Al McDowall

    It just occurred to me that the picture Apple is painting of consumers (in general, not just their own) are morons. The implication, with all the 'lost sales' nonsense, is that the vast majority of people who bought the Samsung devices would have rather bought an iPhone but ended up coming out of the store with a Samsung instead.

    At no point is there any conceit towards the possibility of someone going into a store, telling the assistant 'I want to buy an iPhone' and that assistant introducing them to the other options, allowing for a choice to actually be made. Nor is there any acknowledgement of the fact that many of those Samsung devices will have been bought by people like us, who do not want to buy Apple and choose the best available Android device from a manufacturer with a proven track record.

    It's actually pretty offensive and remarkably short sighted (assuming of course that they actually believe the crud they and their lawyers are spouting)

  • jaysann22

    I think what Apple idiots are failing to understand is that Android phones dont sell well because of their mere looks, but because of what they can do! Claiming they copied Apple's look and it lost sales as a result is just failed logic....

    • David Keith

      Its not just that though... Apple is suing Samsung for 20 (17 now) devices and all the Patents they violate of Apple's. Yeah Apple is pissed it looks the same but I think that just the opening argument to get them into the door. And once they are in they are opening a can a whoop ass on all that patents that Samsung is infringing.

      Now don't get me wrong. The devices do look similar, but so do all smart phones. Android phones ARE breaking Apple Patents without a doubt! BUT Apple should have never been awarded the patent applications!! I have read some of the Apple Patents and its scary how vague and un-descriptive they are.

      I think Samsung should pay some but then the patents that Apple owns that are vague should be taken away!

      • liveTexas

        Agreed. Sammy Definitively pushed the envelope with their icons And Android Does infringe on some of Apple's patents : one's that Should NOT have been granted in the 1st place, but a Full Ruling is waaay too far. Unfortunately Judge Koh is in Apple's pocket so yes, Sammy Will Lose but not as much as Apple would like. Apple wants to go after Google itself but needs these multiple Rulings to do so. Using my S3 now with Apex cause I can't stand Wiz...

  • Aku

    The fact alone that apple has a 30% profits margin on each of its devices is enough to make me want to shop elsewhere. It may be a good product but I have found android powered samsung devices to be far better. To give a real life example: My wife, sis in law and bro in law and all their family use iphones. I am the only person who uses a Samsung Nexus S, after comparing phones, my wife is considering buying a samsung phone, her brother already got one and her sister in law keeps asking me "why cant my phone do that / this and yours can". - Apple is too rigid and it was their downfall in the past and will be once again.....

  • Jaxx89

    Apple fans can't even identify an Apple device from a Chinese fake. I saw a few get fooled into buying the fake one thinking its a 4S at a cheaper price. So now Apple should sue them for lost sales and ask them to pay damages(as per their logic)

  • Tim

    This entire ridiculous case should've been thrown out a long time ago. Anyone with any common sense can see right through Apple's BS! Unfortunately, I don't trust many jury's these days when it comes to case's like this. In case after case jury's have awarded millions of dollars to companies and individuals for the most idiotic things. This is the exact reason why no one takes responsibility for their actions anymore. It's always someone else's fault! Blame blame blame! Sue sue sue! It's pathetic!

  • JJSab

    With all the money Apple is spending on legal bs they would have developed another hit like the original iPhone was years ago and the would not need to cry because everyone is passing them in the technological advancements.

  • Dan

    I think Apple should sue all of the retailers and the employees of said retailers for each time a customer came in and asked for an iPhone only to be informed by a salesperson that there is an alternative device called "Android" that can tickle their fancy with little green robots. Clearly, that could have resulted in a lost sale for Apple. Who needs consumerism and education as to what's being bought anyway?

    ..zombie sheep imo.

  • http://twitter.com/MrYuzhai *Certified_geek™

    jobs was a son of a bitch and he has left behind an equally distasteful company.

    • http://twitter.com/qu4ttr0 Drew

      I love that I am not the only one who realizes this.

  • http://codytoombs.wordpress.com/ Cody Toombs

    Awesome math here, do not skip this ;)

    So Apple is asserting 2 million lost sales. At first glance, that's assuming about 9% of the 21.25 million Samsung handsets sold in the US. Here's the catch, a huge percentage of those phones were sold by carriers that don't (or didn't yet) carry the iPhone. Here's the list of phones (counts are listed in thousands) that sold on each carrier during times that the iPhone was also offered on that carrier:

    AT&T: Captivate (1,390), SGS2 (574), SGS2 Skyrocket (636), Infuse 4G (1045)

    Verizon: Continuum (147), Droid Charge (806), Fascinate (407)

    Sprint: Epic 4G (238), Epic 4G Touch (1,510), Intercept (124), Nexus S 4G (88), Replenish (>351, Boost mobile also sold these but there are no clear numbers)

    C Spire: Showcase (195)

    Grand Total: between 7,336,000 (+/- 175,000)

    Remember, the other 14 million phones were selling on networks like T-Mobile, Boost, US Cellular, etc...Or, they were selling on Verizon (before Feb '11) and Sprint (before Oct '11) prior to the time when Apple started selling the iPhone through them.

    That means Apple is claiming 27% of all Samsung devices sold in the US had illegitimately (by virtue of patent and design infringement) stolen sales that should have otherwise been iPhones. Technically, I'm skipping the possible assertion that some people may have switched carriers to get an iPhone but settled on an infringing Samsung product instead...but that's impossible to measure, surely not a massive number, and a pretty f#^king retarded assertion if they did try to make it. We all know that the claim of 2 million was stupid, but this clearly shows that it's downright insulting...possibly slanderous? ;D
    ref: http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1286669/Apple_v_Samsung_US_sales_numbers.pdf PCMag

  • Bob

    Haha that would be 1,999,999 because I wouldn't have bought an apple device even if it was the only smartphone available. Stop lying you crazy fruit. You didn't invent the telephone, the television, music, photography,the answering machine, or the computer.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1368032580 James E. Burkett

    I totally mistook that phone at the top for a iPhone... Never mind the SAMSUNG written along the top of it in bold letters.