Apple demands $707 million in additional damages from Samsung

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/apple-demands-707-million-in-additional-damages-from-samsung/

by nsns • 14 years ago

49 67 14 years ago

arstechnica.com

1qaz2wsx3edc• 14 years ago

And twist the knife.

artursapek• 14 years ago

Is this really warranted? Hasn't Apple won?

ww520• 14 years ago

Apple won the court case, not yet won the mobile war.

antihero• 14 years ago

Well this just makes them absolutely nasty cunts then. Surely even the most hardcore Apple fanatic thinks this is completely unnecessary and designed to stifle competition?

mcantelon6• 14 years ago

>Surely even the most hardcore Apple fanatic thinks this is completely unnecessary and designed to stifle competition?

My guess is they'll laud the decision.

AllenKids8• 14 years ago

Yes, the battle is nasty and Samsung/Google (both are immensely powerful, and not human) is in no danger of being driven out. Why should I feel bad about it?

I'd like to see 3X damage preferably as an AAPL shareholder.

azakai• 14 years ago

Yes, they are just (ab)using the system that currently exists, but it takes a lot of gall to ask for yet more, when the positive verdict was so precariously and unfairly won (the jury foreman that completely misunderstood what prior art means and invented an "interchangeability" definition for infringement).

recoiledsnake• 14 years ago

They also asked for a permanent injunction on sales of the infringing devices.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/22/us-apple-samsung-i...

xaa4• 14 years ago

Apple is trying hard to rival Oracle for the "most dickish technology company" slot. To recap, they've so far:

1. Partially reversed the commoditization of PC hardware, driving up prices for consumers

2. Engaged in large-scale App Store censorship

3. Gouged 30% from eBook content owners

4. Exploited Foxconn workers (possibly)

5. Are sitting on an enormous pile of cash and donate nothing to charity

And now patent trolling. I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally feel it is unethical to buy Apple products. I think the ethical tone of the company was set when Jobs screwed Woz out of the bonus for Breakout for Atari.

But hey, they made computing shinier. Yay?

philwebster• 14 years ago

There are issues with all of your points, but 3, 4, and 5 are especially bad.

3. Amazon and Barnes & Noble charge similar prices. Apple's flat 70% no matter the price is the simplest to understand.

4. Apple has been very upfront about improving worker conditions, more so than other companies in the industry.

5. False, see http://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/08/apple-institutes-new-cha...

I'm not saying that Apple is perfect or that they couldn't improve their policies, but those are some weak arguments.

xaa4• 14 years ago

3. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/20...

4. Yes, I qualified this with a "possibly". Their public statements have seemed to indicate that they are willing to change. But progress has been "mixed": http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57516945-37/watchdog-group... Then, there is the question of why they only seemed to realize there was a problem after a NPR expose.

5. Yes, "nothing" was hyperbole. But they lag companies of similar size: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/03/apple-charity-donat... When Exxon is giving more than you on a per-market-cap basis, you might have a problem.

Overall, I think Tim Cook is moving the company in a better direction. But they have a long way to go.

siglesias2• 14 years ago

1. Partially reversed the commoditization of PC hardware, driving up prices for consumers

So we're going to pretend that market forces didn't cause this?

xaa4• 14 years ago

Not talking about tablets and mobile devices. I'm talking about the way they bundle their PC hardware and software. And specifically about the way their TOS forbids installing OSX on non-Apple hardware.

czhiddy2• 14 years ago

Wow, I'd love to see some of your citations for (1). If anything, their aggressive supply chain management has helped drive down prices for things like capacitative touch screens, NAND flash, hi-dpi LCDs, etc.

Last week, I ordered some parts for a new workstation - a high-end Ivy Bridge i5, 256gig SSD, 16GB RAM, etc for ~600. How much did I overpay because Apple "reversed the commoditization" of PC hardware?

batgaijin• 14 years ago

They've shown how profitable the high end sector is with lower sales.

Kind of like how nobody really makes netbooks, only ultrabooks. That also has a bit more to do with Intel/Microsoft threatening/bribing manufacturers, but even without that the manufacturers don't like dealing with that low-end sector.

hrbrtglm• 14 years ago

Donate to charity while avoiding to pay state/country taxes which can benefit the whole community sounds so hypocrit !

w1ntermute2• 14 years ago

The sad part is that very few hackers are willing to put their money (and their hardware) where their mouths are. It truly is not inconceivable that, if we all would spend a little bit of our time and money contributing to Linux/Ubuntu, that we could have a solid OS that we could all use on a daily basis. But instead, we spend hundreds and thousands of dollars on Apple hardware, and Ubuntu has to resort to adding advertising to their OS. It really is quite a sad state of affairs.

saurik2• 14 years ago

I would happily pay for Ubuntu. However, Ubuntu would have to charge quite a bit of money in order to make even remotely as much per user as Apple is making by being a high-margin hardware company (where the OS is almost nothing more to them than an incentive to buy more hardware).

Even so, I'd happily pay for that as well; but, I can't, as Ubuntu won't take my money [1]: they don't sell anything I can actually buy; AFAIK, the only thing they accept money for is sending people to my business to give talks about how to better use Ubuntu.

[1] http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/why-is-it-free

Now, that said, a lot of the value that Ubuntu brings to the table is actually thanks to the people working on Debian: Ubuntu just takes their packages. I would also quite happily pay for things from Debian; I'd probably be even happier doing so than paying for things from Ubuntu.

However, they also do not charge for things, so I cannot pay them for things. I can donate money to them[2], but now we are talking about something much more complex (involving physical mail and checks or money orders) at a much higher mental cost of deciding "well, now how much?".

[2] http://www.spi-inc.org/donations/

I personally don't even think that I'm rare: a lot of people are quite happy to pay for things that provide them value, and Ubuntu is not just helping me personally, it helps my business. I run all of my servers using Ubuntu: I'm paying Amazon to run the machines, I'd happily pay Ubuntu for the software.

I thereby don't think it is quite fair to put the blame for this on the "very few hackers [that/which/whom/omgdunno] are willing to put their money where their mouths are": Ubuntu is much like the business that is undercharging for their services, and thereby cannot satisfy the customer [3].

[3] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4555062

(Though, I can totally see the argument that the reason that they are able to even do what they do is that they do not charge: that if they charged there would be tons of internal community arguments about what the money was for and who would get it; or, quite simply, the direct monetization could undermine the charitable aspects.)

flatline3• 14 years ago

Ubuntu never gave me the option to purchase hardware and an OS of Apple-level quality. So I haven't. I would like to.

ryanhuff3• 14 years ago

I love it when people complain about how Apple likes to control their store. Next time you are your Walmart, ask the manager ask why they engage in censorship because they don't carry your favorite magazine.

And your 30% complaint is silly, considering that retail markup is often far greater than that, and that anybody can sell their own enooks direct to consumers if they like.

luriel2• 14 years ago

Apple controls what I can install or not install on hardware that I already bought and which is mine, Apple does all it can (which is a lot) to make it close to impossible for me to run any software I have not got from them on hardware I own.

Even if I write the software myself I'm supposed to pay Apple for the privilege of running software I wrote on hardware I own!

If that is not insanely outrageous, I don't know what is.

kyriakos4• 14 years ago

walmart doesn't forbid you from walking into another store and buying it though.

Me1000• 14 years ago

1. Commodities don't make record profits. There is nothing "dickish" about that… That's how companies work.

3. I've hear equally terribly, if not more terrible percentages from Amazon on physical books. In fact, I've heard worse. Amazon has been known to require publishes to set lower prices… At least Apple lets you set your own price!

4. Apple seems to have done more to improve working conditions than any other company that uses Foxconn.

5. False. While Apple might not directly donate (although, I'm not entirely certain they don't), they have implemented a policy in which they agree to match the donation of any employee (up to a certain amount).

6. That's not patent trolling. Patent trolling is when you have a patent which you don't use yourself, yet sue people who do… and thus make most of your revenue on patent lawsuits.

mikeash• 14 years ago

You cannot compare percentages between physical and electronic books. Amazon's costs for a physical book are substantially higher than anybody's costs for an electronic book. You have to compare apples to apples here. Doing so, you won't find Amazon to be any better than Apple, but neither will you find them to be any worse. Their percentages for physical books are substantially worse because their costs are substantially higher. That's the cost that comes from selling paper: you're obligated to give a lot of money to middlemen because the material is inherently expensive to create and sell.

rorrr• 14 years ago

Apple brand is officially toxic for me. I will not spend a dime on their products ever again.

kyriakos4• 14 years ago

seems like more people are in the same boaat as you but unfortunately apple is targeting mainstream consumers and not the hardcore users who know what they are buying and also tend to be much less in numbers to affect apple's revenues.

if all developers stopped buying apple hardware tomorrow would it really hurt apple ?

neya2• 14 years ago

Agreed. I run a small game company and I was looking forward to buying a high-end computer. I was considering the iMac due to its form factor. Then, one of my friends suggested an HP Z1 workstation. Both are priced similarly and share the same form-factor, yet I realized I would be over-paying Apple if I went for the iMac because:

1) The fucking iMac still has no USB 3.0, though we're two years ahead of 2010

2) The HP Z1 comes with a professional NVidia Quadro card, whereas the iMac comes with a mobile Graphics (Radeon 6790M)

4) The HP comes with a Xeon, whereas, Apple gives me an i5 for the same price. (Wtf!)

5) The HP is user-upgradeable (including the graphics card), whereas you can't upgrade anything more than the RAM on the iMac.

And much much more. If anything, Apple has proved to be ultra-expensive and has always tried to make things expensive. When someone buys a professional computer, they buy it for the performance more than the design. The iMacs are simply overrated piece of under-rated hardware.

kyriakos4• 14 years ago

xeon :)

luriel2• 14 years ago

You forgot one of the worst harms Apple has done to the tech industry:

Make it acceptable that users have no control over the operating system running on their hardware, and much more importantly: what applications they are allowed to run on that hardware.

Can anyone imagine Microsoft banning all non-MS-approved programs from running on Windows in the 90s? Or starting to sell computers that can only run Windows, and where you can only install MS-approved software (and software for which MS takes a 30% cut, if you are lucky to get approved).

And can anyone imagine Microsoft suing, say, Netscape or Sun for patent infringement?

Apple's behavior wold have been beyond outrageously unthinkable from the most vilified tech company of the last 20 years.

But because it is Apple, it gets a pass. Is the victory of form over substance, of marketing and hype over principles and values.

It will take decades to undo the damage Apple has done, if we ever recover.

molmalo2• 14 years ago

As George Santayana said: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". It seems Apple is becoming the biggest bully in the market and the last time, that didn't end very well for Microsoft.

Yeah, they still make a huge amount of money, but that's because they achieved a level of market penetration so high that it was almost a monopoly. Companies spent lots of money on MS technologies. People everywhere got used to Windows because it was easy enough and it was perceived as 'the only way'. Most people didn't know that there were alternatives to Microsoft's products, and most of those who did, saw the alternatives as something hard to learn, or too technical. And eventually, the bullying ended up eroding Microsoft's public image so hard that it is still trying to recover from that.

Apple on the other hand, nor is able to achieve the same level of market penetration anytime soon, nor it is seen as something without competition. OK, maybe some people see them as something without competition, but that's because they are so into their iProducts, that they have stopped being objective. But for most people, it wouldn't be that hard to change from iProducts to any other product out there, whether it's Android or Windows or whatever.

--- My 2 cents:

Apple is a strange company, because it can be understood much better as a rock band than as a hardware manufacturer.

As a rock band, they had some world-wide hits. Critics loved them, and people followed them (even sleeping in the streets to buy some tickets!). They have their groupies and a relatively big fan-base that considers Apple as The Best Band Ever. But money and fame gets into your head. And someday, those fans will slowly start to disagree with some of the "new turns" their beloved band is taking. At first, most of the fans will think "ok, it's just a short phase, they will be back on tracks". Then, for whatever reason, one of the main members leaves the band, and it's replaced by someone else (a low blow, I know, sorry), that has been close to the band for a while, but of course, he has it's own style, somehow different from the guy leaving. "It's a band, not just a guy, the band will go on just as always" some of the fans say, but a few more start to look with suspicion. With the passage of time, the band releases a new cheesy album. Their music is starting to be really commercial. This time, the media notices and the critics are not as happy as they used to be with this band. At this point, their fans take a few different paths:

1- Some will admit that the band is not what it used to be, and may start to look for other horizons, becoming more open to new music and maybe, realize that there are other good things under the sun.

2- Others will just get a little more nervous. But maybe not because they are just loyal, but because they're still not ready to let that phase of their lives behind, they keep spending money on buying the band's products (albums, merchandising, tickets, etc), in hopes that the next album will be better, just as it used to be.

3- A few others will take a very similar path as the previous group, but they do consider themselves loyal. They are not very happy with the current situation. The band does not causes the same level of joy on them as it used to cause. But they were there with the band since the beginning and they will be there for the band now.

4- Finally, the groupies, the hardcore fans, will go berserk and will defend the band, the new direction, the new members, the new cheesy album, and at the same time, attack the critics, other bands, and the former fans who leave their rows. They spent so much energy and money following the band, that they are now too vested in it. They enter in total DENIAL. They don't want to feel like stupids, like if they made a mistake supporting the band so much through the years. After all, humans are tribal by nature, and deep inside, they want to keep belonging to that tribe.

Not surprisingly, this can match very well to the Kübler-Ross model (5 stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance).

The ones in (4) are mostly in denial. Some of them, are in anger, projecting their fury to others.

The folks in (3) are someplace between anger and bargaining.

People in (2) are clearly in the phase of depression, as they are still not ready to move on, but they realize that the band is not what it used to be.

And finally, people in (1) are in acceptance. They've moved on.

In their current state, Apple is becoming this band. They are forgetting about their user base, and going full commercial. While this means lots of money in the short term, they still lack a real classic. They lack a Thriller (MJ), A Day in the Life, a Bohemian Rhapsody. Windows is a classic. Office is a classic, Google Search, Google Maps is a classic. Every now and then, almost everyone goes back to those products even if they've switch to something else.

You can make a huge amount of money with a Summer Hit, And Apple has been doing it for a while, just like Gaga. But if you don't have a classic, what stops you to becoming "last year's summer hit"?

Hardware is becoming less and less relevant. And Apple's lack of a classics in the software front is what makes them have a low barrier to exit. And I think that's the very reason of why they are closing their ecosystem more and more with each release. Their walled garden is quickly becoming a prison yard.

And finishing this very very long post (as I doubt someone will read all of this, lol) their attitude is not helping them to maintain the current status quo, with them as the current Summer Hit.

alphang• 14 years ago

I believe Nilay Patel at The Verge has previously said that this is an expected maneuver for this type of litigation after the initial verdict, including asking for maximum damages and sales ban.

Can a lawyer on HN comment on this?

mrinterweb• 14 years ago

This is the kind of stuff that makes me feel awkward any time I use my Air in public. Business practices like this make me feel guilty for purchasing Apple products.

czhiddy2• 14 years ago

> Business practices like this make me feel guilty for purchasing Apple products.

Samsung's history of corporate scandals and widespread corruption would make them even less palatable then, no?

uvTwitch2• 14 years ago

I've always felt that way about apple, which is why I've never owned any of their products. If this is how you feel, you'd likely feel better if you did the same.

lines• 14 years ago

If you take asking for the additional damages the law allows (most of which is based on willfulness, which the jury explicitly upheld), plus an injunction (which everyone always asks for) as anything other than lawyers taking the case to its logical conclusion, you're being silly. Whatever you think about the case, this is nothing new or surprising.

uvTwitch2• 14 years ago

Is anybody really surprised to learn that apple is a scummy business? Their polished exterior hides a rotten core - as anyone who's ever worked with xcode or any of their APIs can cofirm - and their smug, self-satisfied, elitist marketing has always been the biggest indicator of this.

31reasons• 14 years ago

It feels like Apple's soul is gone and now its a zombie hungry for cash. All of their executives and their top engineers are already awash in cash. They are worlds top company. what are they after now ? Is this how the greed looks like at a global scale ? They should learn from nature, Lions do hunt for food but when they are satisfied they leave other animals to scrape meat off their hunt. They have stopped acting like smart group of people and more like a tumor.

Apple demands $707 million in additional damages from Samsung

Related Stories