apple wants samsung to pay 40 per phone

[JackBurton]

LOL. Tell that to people like myself who got suckered into the fad and bought iPhone 4's. That thing was a heaping pile of shit.

This is about as retarded of a statement as it gets. Even die hard Android fans wouldn't make such a moronic comment. Soooo, sounds like you may need a Razor phone. Might be more your speed.

 

[JackBurton]

I think Steve Jobs banged his wife or something. I've never seen someone have so much hate for a person they have never met.

The nerd rage against Steve Jobs is hilarious to me. It's as if he did something to personally hurt them.

Nerd rage is funny. It's even funnier when they go into why they hate Apple/Steve Jobs. There is really no logic to it.

 

[Oyeve]

I think Steve Jobs banged his wife or something. I've never seen someone have so much hate for a person they have never met.

The nerd rage against Steve Jobs is hilarious to me. It's as if he did something to personally hurt them.

Haha, no, I wish he banged my wife. I would be a rich man now.

 

[Oyeve]

What about this monstrosity?

Aint a phone.

 

[Oyeve]

Is it even possible? One thing I have gotten from Anand's podcasts is that optics has set rules established in like the 70's and there is no way Intel engineers, refined production processes, or even pixie dust can change these rules. He said something like: unlike everything else in tech we just assume it will get better every year until its like Star Trek but optics don't work that way.

It seems in order to have optical zoom you just need a bigger phone.

Im sure its possible on a mechanical basis. If even for a modest 2x-3x optical zoom you would need a larger bump or make the phone much thicker. I am sure its possible but companies are pushing for thinner not thicker.

 

[JackBurton]

I'm a huge Apple fanboy, but come on...enough is enough. Obviously the first Galaxy was a rip-off:

http://i.imgur.com/nkLe5DI.jpg

Yes, fine, sue them for that. And yes, the naming scheme is dumb - S4 vs. 4S? S5 vs. 5S? Okay. But let's get real: all touchscreen phones are going to work the same & pretty much look the same. But I don't see Apple selling a competitor to the 5" S4 or a waterproof iPhone like the Active. And competition is a Good Thing because it fosters innovation & drives new designs and keeps the marketplace fresh - people like to buy new stuff! As much as I love Apple, the 5/5S was a huge disappointment...gee, a slightly taller screen by 0.5"? No jumbo screen? No waterproofing? No gesture support? Only an 8 MP camera instead of 16 MP camera? No 1080p resolution? No IR transmitter? No, X, Y, or Z features?

Samsung is the one keeping up with the times here and Apple seems to be retaliating by going to court instead of innovating. Everyone I know with an iPhone is super jealous of the larger, easier-to-read, easier-to-use BIG screens on the Android phones - and yet here we are in 2014 and we still only have a 4" non-wide iPhone with none of the extra bells & whistles of the Androids, like water resistance. To me, the Apple vs. Samsung thing has gotten to the point where it is now as dumb as Candy Crush suing everyone for having the word "candy" in their names, even the apps that came before them. Our legal system can be a real joke at times.

I mean seriously, I thought we learned this lesson in the P&S digital cameras wars. MP don't mean jack squat.

 

[Jodell88]

I have sometimes, maybe even quite often, but not always agreed with Apple. And I have disagreed with Apple on more occasions than parts of the Android and open source communities have acknowledged. Now that I have obtained the public transcript (which you can find at the end of this post) of a January 23 hearing held by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Apple and Samsung's motions to toss each other's damages theories, I face the first situation in which I don't merely disagree with Apple but am rather wondering whether it has lost its mind.
Apple's damages theory for the trial that will begin in less than three weeks (on March 31) is an objective insanity, and I say so even though Judge Koh allowed Apple to present it to the jury.
A damages expert will argue on Apple's behalf that, if the parties had acted reasonably and rationally in a hypothetical negotiation, Samsung would have agreed to pay $40 -- forty dollars! -- per phone or tablet sold as a total royalty for the five patents-in-suit, which relate to (but don't even fully monopolize) the phone number tapping feature, unified search, data synchronization, slide-to-unlock, and autocomplete. The theory is that Samsung would simply have raised its prices accordingly. (You can find the final list of Apple's patents-in-suit here; that post also lists Samsung's patents-in-suit, but three more patent claims have since been dropped).
$40 per unit. For five software patents. Give me a break. Reality distortion would be a total understatement for this.

This damages theory is also irreconcilable with Apple's own numbers that have previously come to light in the same district:

• At a meeting between Apple and Samsung in 2010 (the year before this litigation started), Apple proposed a royalty of $30 per unit for an entire portfolio, not just a handful of patents (to be precise, the proposal also involved a rate of $40 per unit for tablet computers, but only for the first two years).
• In the first California litigation, Apple's reasonable royalty damages claim for its software patents was only a fraction of what it wants now. The per-unit royalty claims in the summer 2012 trial were $3.10 for the "pinch-to-zoom API" '915 patent (which the USPTO now considers invalid) and $2.02 each for the "overscroll bounce" (or "rubber-banding") '318 patent and the "tap-to-zoom-and-navigate" '163 patent. That was a total of §7.14 for three software patents. The total damages amount in the first case ($929 million after two trials, but prior to the appeal, which Samsung filed last week) was $929 million, but the bulk of that was related to design patents and trade dress, i.e., intellectual property rights for which U.S. statutory law explicitly allows damages theories (disgorgement of infringer's profits) that are legally unavailable for utility (i.e., technical) patents.

I have repeatedly criticized, and won't ever support, Samsung's 2.4%-of-total-device-sales royalty demand for its portfolio of wireless standard-essential patents (SEPs). Apple has argued over and over, and rightly in my opinion, that the number is not a FRAND royalty rate. Apple and I have also taken that position on Motorola Mobility's 2.25% demand for a portfolio of patents of the same kind. But 2.25% or 2.4% of the price of a $500 iPhone would be $12 per unit -- less than a third of what Apple wants for five software patents, and Samsung and Motorola hold a far greater number of wireless SEPs.

Apple's royalty-type damages claim for five software patents is also far out of the ballpark of anything that has ever been claimed or rumored to be paid in this industry for entire portfolios. After Apple and Nokia settled in 2011, the highest per-unit royalty estimate I heard about (and this was just an analyst's claim, not official information) was in the $10 range -- for Nokia's huge portfolio of SEPs and non-SEPs, not for a handful of patents. Guesstimates of what various Android device makers pay to Microsoft -- again, for a portfolio license, not a five-patent license -- that have appeared in the media did not exceed $15-20 per unit, at least the ones I'm aware of. (And Microsoft has a stronger software patent portfolio than Apple.)

http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/03/at-upcoming-trial-apple-wants-samsung.html

 

[Rakehellion]

Haha, no, I wish he banged my wife.

Beta male cuckold fetish.

I would be a rich man now.

Your wife would.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Im sure its possible on a mechanical basis. If even for a modest 2x-3x optical zoom you would need a larger bump or make the phone much thicker. I am sure its possible but companies are pushing for thinner not thicker.

Yeah sorry I wasn't clear. What I was saying was "Is that possible on a mainstream high-end device?" not can it be done. I mean the Galaxy Camera plus a radio and its done.

 

[JackBurton]

Oh look, it's the resident Apple Fanboi Club president.

Ripping off technologies... Now that's funny right there, I don't care who you are.

Nice to meet you reality denier. And again, I think this is lost on most nerds, technology is one thing, the implementation is another. And that's where most fall behind Apple.

But here is the latest rip off from Samsung, introducing the all new FINGERPRINT READER ON A PHONE! Great example of both, ripping off Apple, and incorrect implementation. Now don't get me wrong, Samsung COULD HAVE implemented it correctly, but then it would just be Touch ID, and AGAIN, Samsung would get a massive lawsuit filed against them. Why? Because they lack innovation. And of course because they're stealing.

 

[Jodell88]

Nice to meet you reality denier. And again, I think this is lost on most nerds, technology is one thing, the implementation is another. And that's where most fall behind Apple.

But here is the latest rip off from Samsung, introducing the all new FINGERPRINT READER ON A PHONE! Great example of both, ripping off Apple, and incorrect implementation. Now don't get me wrong, Samsung COULD HAVE implemented it correctly, but then it would just be Touch ID, and AGAIN, Samsung would get a massive lawsuit filed against them. Why? Because they lack innovation. And of course because they're stealing.

Actually, they're following Motorola. The Atrix had it in 2011. I'm sure there are phones that had one before that as well. 😛

 

[Oyeve]

Nice to meet you reality denier. And again, I think this is lost on most nerds, technology is one thing, the implementation is another. And that's where most fall behind Apple.

But here is the latest rip off from Samsung, introducing the all new FINGERPRINT READER ON A PHONE! Great example of both, ripping off Apple, and incorrect implementation. Now don't get me wrong, Samsung COULD HAVE implemented it correctly, but then it would just be Touch ID, and AGAIN, Samsung would get a massive lawsuit filed against them. Why? Because they lack innovation. And of course because they're stealing.

Fail. Other phones had it years before apple. And the apple implementation is just as bad as all of them

 

[cheezy321]

Haha, no, I wish he banged my wife. I would be a rich man now.

Samsung, with their billions of dollars and the best lawyers in the world, has been torn apart in court so far by Apple. Yet you somehow think you would get money out of Steve Jobs / Apple if he banged your wife?

I'd like to know what drugs you are taking and what dream world you live in.

 

[jagec]

Your wife would.

Right, the guy who denied paternity by claiming that he was sterile and let his biological daughter grow up on food stamps would TOTALLY write a guilt-check to his mistress.🙄

 

[SSSnail]

Actually, they're following Motorola. The Atrix had it in 2011. I'm sure they're phones that had one before that as well. 😛

Too damn lazy to google for ” fingerprint on phones” but i'm sure it has existed way before Apple rips it off someone else, sorry ”implementing”, as it was. That's the thing about Apple fanbois, everything Apple does is ”first”, never mind their patent portfolio is a fraction of others, and most consist of patent such as the innovative and groundbreaking ”rounded corners”.

Apple are always at the forefront of innovation, introducing technologies such as MMS on phones,, camera, multitasking, interactive navigation, pull down notification tab, etc... I think I need a few more dots..............

 

[Jodell88]

Apple are always at the forefront of innovation, introducing technologies such as MMS on phones,, camera, multitasking, interactive navigation, pull down notification tab, etc... I think I need a few more dots..............

You forgot *cough* copy and paste *cough* 😛

 

[norseamd]

I wish we could clone Jobs, just so he could die again over and over and over.

actually he probably died because of being a fruitavore

 

[JackBurton]

Actually, they're following Motorola. The Atrix had it in 2011. I'm sure there are phones that had one before that as well. 😛

Let me clarify, fingerprint reader on the home button. If Apple copied Motorola's implementation, it would be just as big a failure, just like all the laptops that have had fingerprint readers waaaaay before the 5s. Again, implementation means everything.

 

[JackBurton]

Too damn lazy to google for ” fingerprint on phones” but i'm sure it has existed way before Apple rips it off someone else, sorry ”implementing”, as it was. That's the thing about Apple fanbois, everything Apple does is ”first”, never mind their patent portfolio is a fraction of others, and most consist of patent such as the innovative and groundbreaking ”rounded corners”.

Apple are always at the forefront of innovation, introducing technologies such as MMS on phones,, camera, multitasking, interactive navigation, pull down notification tab, etc... I think I need a few more dots..............

Read above for clarification.

 

[Jodell88]

Let me clarify, fingerprint reader on the home button. If Apple copied Motorola's implementation, it would be just as big a failure, just like all the laptops that have had fingerprint readers waaaaay before the 5s. Again, implementation means everything.

Oh, so now it's the implementation that matters?

 

[JackBurton]

Oh, so now it's the implementation that matters?

Haha, you're slow to catch on. It has always been about the implementation.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Haha, you're slow to catch on. It has always been about the implementation.

Like later this year when Apple becomes the first company to properly implement a 5 inch screen in their phones?

 

[Oyeve]

Like later this year when Apple becomes the first company to properly implement a 5 inch screen in their phones?

:awe:

 

[Phoenix86]

Nice to meet you reality denier. And again, I think this is lost on most nerds, technology is one thing, the implementation is another. And that's where most fall behind Apple.

But here is the latest rip off from Samsung, introducing the all new FINGERPRINT READER ON A PHONE! Great example of both, ripping off Apple, and incorrect implementation. Now don't get me wrong, Samsung COULD HAVE implemented it correctly, but then it would just be Touch ID, and AGAIN, Samsung would get a massive lawsuit filed against them. Why? Because they lack innovation. And of course because they're stealing.

Finger print to unlock?

Yeah, that's totally an Apple invention.

 

[Jodell88]

Haha, you're slow to catch on. It has always been about the implementation.

It has never been about the implementation.

Samsung is agile enough to manoeuvre themselves quickly behind market leaders, which they did to Apple in this modern smartphone market. When Samsung got their foot in, they started doing their own thing, larger phones, etc.

Apple is trying to use ligation for two things. The first is to reign in their competitors because they believe they should have a larger slice of the pie. The second is raising the cost of entry and the cost of being in the market. Raising the cost of entry helps keep new competition out, and raising the cost of being in the market can make existing competitors bow out of the market.

Other smart phone companies that weren't as quick to get into the modern smartphone market suffered as a result because they were too late. Just look at Nokia, Palm, Blackberry as examples.