Originally Posted by Graham
(I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Forgive me if I've misunderstood.)
You're right that given the jury's statement that's what they should have done. But it seems clear to me from Hogan's interview that whether or not Apple had sufficient stock didn't figure in their final calculation.
I was talking about this quote:
However, Hogan said Apple's damages demand of up to $2.75 billion were "extraordinarily high," partly because it was unclear whether Apple had enough component supply to sell more phones even if it had wanted to.
Apple's damages expert testified that Samsung earned margins of roughly 35.5 percent on the products at issue in the lawsuit, on $8.16 billion in revenue. However, Hogan said they thought Apple's percentage did not properly take into account many other costs identified by Samsung.
Samsung's damages expert testified the margin should be closer to 12 percent, and the jury picked a number slightly above that, Hogan said.
"We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."
The jury considered that the value requested by Apple doesn't take some costs into account, and decided for some unspecified reason to ignore the value estimated by Samsung, instead they went with their experience above the facts presented (what you quoted in post #35). And then, despite the fact that according to the instructions they were supposed to offer compensation for the loss of revenue, they disregarded the fact that Apple's losses are lower by the limitations of the stock.