View Single Post
Old 08-30-2012, 10:14 AM   #33
Sil_liS
Wizard
Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 4,886
Karma: 33602910
Join Date: Oct 2010
Device: PocketBook 903 & 360+
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
And even there you have to scratch your head. The jury decided to accept Samsung's 12% profit margin figure on the accused devices, but bumped it up (for some reason) to 14%.

So wait... they awarded damages equal to all of Samsung's profit margin (and maybe a bit more) as compensation for lost sales to Apple.

So they're saying that everyone who bought a Samsung phone would have bought an iPhone instead? Even those who bought the cheaper phones, or those on different carriers?
Actually they are not saying that. If you read what Andrew H. quoted in post #14, they weren't convinced that Apple would have been able to manufacture the extra smartphones. I think that the problem is the fact that Apple's profit margin is much higher than Samsung's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
I'll admit though that although his general point stands, I'd like to know how he estimates a quarter of a million patents infringed per device.
I wouldn't be surprised by that number. Think of all the patents for the different components, and the fact that each action that the software is capable of has been patented by someone.
Sil_liS is offline   Reply With Quote