
Samsung to pay Apple $548M in patent dispute - tosseraccount
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/samsung-to-pay-apple-548-million-in-patent-dispute
======
sidcool
It's like taking a cup of water from sea and pouring it in ocean.

~~~
posnet
That's a good idea to stop rising sea levels. If everyone just chips in and
fills a bucket with ocean water and then tips it down the drain at home it
will be lower in no time.

------
pearjuice
Does it hurt for Samsung at all to loose this money? Surely it it is 548M$
lost which could have been used otherwise, but in the big picture is it like a
needle sting or a blast with a hammer?

Also, how is this kind of money generally paid? They just wire more than half
a billion to Apple? Send it over in cash? In gold? Do they get an invoice?

~~~
at-fates-hands
Its a drop in the bucket really. Samsung's revenues run around 4 billion _per
quarter_ and you also have to keep in mind they're not like Apple where
they're only in one industry - they have a ton of products across a spectrum
of industries.

source: [http://www.statista.com/statistics/298704/samsung-
quarterly-...](http://www.statista.com/statistics/298704/samsung-quarterly-
revenue/)

Also, I just read the book "Haunted Empire" which detailed the Apple v.
Samsung battle in pretty good detail, it's an excellent read:
[http://www.amazon.com/Haunted-Empire-Apple-After-
Steve/dp/00...](http://www.amazon.com/Haunted-Empire-Apple-After-
Steve/dp/0062128256/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1449330315&sr=8-1&keywords=haunted+empire)

------
jfoster
It's interesting that at the same time as coming to an agreement to partly
settle, they're disputing whether Samsung should be reimbursed if the court
reverses the partial judgement. This might be as simple as the two companies
agreeing to publicly disagree on that point. My previous impression of this
type of situation was that the companies involved would be more rigid about
the terms of settlement. Another possibility is that neither of them can
decide, and that reimbursement part is actually up to the court.

~~~
sergers
there was a partial final judgement that samsung has to pay a certain amount,
and were denied not having them pay.

so the statement is.

samsung forking over certain amount to apple apple receiving a certain amount.
samsung still thinks it doesnt owe a cent(especially since atleast one patent
has been invalidated already and possibly a 2nd one now) and says its owed the
money back if they win appeal. likely taking to supreme court (requested whole
trial reviews).

apple noted it doesnt think samsung should get any money back if the courts
change their mind.

a bit more info: [http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/12/samsung-announces-
payment...](http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/12/samsung-announces-payment-
of-548.html)

samsung paid while still saying they are in the right, i believe they
"settled" to avoid any fines and continued device blocks.

------
Patronus_Charm
A drop in the bucket for Apple. It is more about the principle I suppose, more
so than the cash.

~~~
at-fates-hands
It was the same way with Samsung. Both companies dug in and essentially went
to war with each other. Most people think it was Jobs' famous, "thermonuclear"
comment that set the Samsung CEO off.

Over the past decade both companies have been attempting to amass more and
more patents to use against each other. Both have had limited success against
each other in court. When one wins a victory, it's overturned somewhere else
on appeal, or judgements are significantly reduced.

Honestly, it's a total stalemate. Apple's suing over products that have been
outdated for more than a decade. Samsung has already changed their design to
avoid any more of Apple's patents, making any future litigation impossible.

~~~
skue
> Samsung has already changed their design to avoid any more of Apple's
> patents, making any future litigation impossible.

All the comments about the dollar value of this suit are missing this point. I
would assume Apple cares much more about sending a message to Samsung and
others that they feel are simply copying their innovations. And if it gets
their competitors to change their behavior and differentiate themselves, then
the lawsuits are probably worth Apple's investment.

~~~
at-fates-hands
>> And if it gets their competitors to change their behavior and differentiate
themselves, then the lawsuits are probably worth Apple's investment.

While this is true, a lot of people have questioned if fighting all these
patent battles on different fronts have allowed Android and Microsoft to catch
up and pass them - stunting the companies ability to "make great products our
customers want."

When you look at what they've done since Jobs has been gone, they really
haven't had another groundbreaking product - all "innovations" have been
incremental. Even their 6s which finally came with a larger (4.7) screen was
released this year. By comparison, The Galaxy SIII and the Nexus 4 with the
same size screen was released in 2012, 3 years before Apple finally went to a
larger screen.

The company has been taking hits from wall street all year as well - this was
a report back in August:

 _Apple 's earnings were good. But Wall Street was disappointed that iPhone
sales were a little lower than expected. Its outlook was also less bullish
than what analysts were predicting._

 _There are concerns that Apple may be losing ground in China, an increasingly
important market for the company. China accounted for more than 25% of the
company 's total sales in its most recent quarter._

 _Tech research firm Canalys reported Tuesday that Apple, which had the
smartphone market share lead in China during the first quarter, slipped to
third in the second quarter. Apple is now trailing Chinese tech companies
Xiaomi and Huawei._

And. . .

 _" Can Apple find new geographies to drive growth? Probably not. Will they be
able to lift the average selling price? Probably not. Are they dependent on
the iPhone? Yes. There's only so much room to grow," Gillis said._

 _Gillis said investors want to see the company develop more products that can
keep revenue and profits growing in the future._

 _It can 't rely on the iPhone forever. The jury is out on whether the Apple
Watch will ever be more than just a niche product._

 _The pressure to keep churning out hot new gadgets may be keeping some
investors on the sidelines as well._

[http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/04/investing/apple-stock-
down-i...](http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/04/investing/apple-stock-down-iphone-
china/)

------
tmuir
Why would Samsung expend the effort to argue the seemingly obvious concept
that if the verdict is overturned, the awarded damages should be returned?
Apple's position appears to be standard, in claiming victory, and dismissing
the possibility that any higher court will come to a different conclusion,
thereby refusing to entertain that damages would _need_ to be returned.

Under what circumstances would Apple be entitled to keep monetary damages, if,
in fact, a higher court reverses the current decision?

~~~
yeldarb
It's a settlement so in most cases this would be the end of it and there
should be no higher court ruling. But in reality Samsung is still pursing an
end around via the USPTO.

------
on_and_off
>on some technology and packaging patents for devices.

That's not very informative. What patents are we talking about exactly ?

------
TeMPOraL
Will they actually pay Apple in trucks full of coins this time?

~~~
braythwayt
I don’t know about other jurisdictions, but in Canada there is actually a law
in place that allows the receiver of a payment to refuse more than a certain
amount of the payment in coins.

A quick googling turns up this Wikipedia page:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender)

The net-net is that an armoured truck full of coins is not necessarily “legal
tender” in every country.

------
daniel-cussen
Measuring how smartphone profits are distributed across makers should take
instances of patent litigation, like this one, into account.

------
peter303
I wonder if this less than the total lawyer fees from nearly a decade of
litigatiom?

~~~
samspenc
I think this article from 2013 is telling:

The Verge: Apple paid its lawyers over $60 million to beat Samsung in court
[http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/6/5182736/apple-paid-its-
law...](http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/6/5182736/apple-paid-its-lawyers-
over-60-million-to-beat-samsung-in-court)

------
hellbanner
Apple: "Samsung willfully stole our ideas and copied our products.”"

Apple has forced developers off its own iOS ecosystem by removing their app
from the store then introducing its features in the next iOS upgrades.
Hypocrites.

------
datashovel
Prediction: Within 10 years Alphabet will be in a position to buy Apple.

~~~
davito
Haha, I like this statement. BTW I'm curious. Humour me, What do you see
happening in the not too distant future

~~~
datashovel
Don't get me wrong, my personal take on this is not based on anything about
these 2 companies except what is exposed via press releases and news.

These days it seems to happen quite often that when I read about what's
happening at Google I'm genuinely amazed. And so often when I read about
what's happening at Apple I'm underwhelmed or disappointed.

Not that things can't change, but my impression is the entire core culture /
trajectory of Apple will take many years to change even if they decided to
start today. My hunch is they won't, and will end up paying the price for it.

~~~
aplummer
"Not that things can't change, but my impression is the entire core culture /
trajectory of Apple will take many years to change even if they decided to
start today."

You are aware they are the most valuable company in the world? I'd say they
are probably hoping that trajectory doesn't change...

~~~
datashovel
I totally get it. Sounds like a crazy prediction. I don't try to make
predictions all the time, but am always interested in how accurate they were,
and so all I can say is I've added a date on my calendar ~10 years from now
and so you can rest assured that I'll learn either way whether I was right or
wrong.

~~~
aplummer
You miss my point, I am saying their current trajectory is to become more and
more successful. They do not want to 'turn around' at all.

~~~
datashovel
I think I get the point. Still doesn't change my perspective / prediction.

------
mSparks
well that should keep apple from going bankrupt for another year or two.

ridiculous though that a company that basically does nothing but buy things
from other companies and puts them in a shiny box should be allowed to win and
lose cases like this IMHO.

annoying we have to wait for 2021 for all the obvious patents granted during
the dot com bubble to expire.

~~~
WoodenChair
Apple is anything but a commodity assembler. In fact that's what distinguishes
it from its competitors in most markets. Most people are upset with Apple for
the opposite - choosing to create from scratch proprietary software and
hardware standards instead of choosing commodity options.

~~~
mSparks
this is for their "design patents" issued in 2007.

which can basically be described as "a phone as a box with a touchscreen and
no keyboard"

all they "make" is the box. they don't own the rights to any of the parts
inside it (although they do have exclusive distribution rights for the
versions of the components they put in the box)

OK they write their own firmware for those boxes. but none of that is actually
that good. anyone using their latest kit knows their phones don't even work
that good as a phone.

apple as a company won't survive past the last of Steve jobs patents expiring.
which is no later than 2028.

~~~
jxdxbx
Apple designs the best mobile CPUs in the industry. They're years ahead of
Qualcomm and the rest. They have some of the best hardware and software
engineers on the planet.

You just have no idea what you're talking about.

