5 ms·

Of course it is. Apple can't get back lost sales and revenue as a result of patent infringement by their direct competitor.

ars 14y ago
Of course it isn't. It's easy to repair: Apple gets paid a fine. This is almost a classic example of repairable harm. The harm to Samsung is actually much worse (they are blocked, as opposed to just having to compete), yet the bond is supposed to make them whole.
jellicle 14y ago
You don't know anything about the law, but you felt you had to chime in, huh? >Apple can't get back lost sales and revenue Unless Samsung was, you know, required to write them a check. For damages. If they lost. Which is how such cases usually proceed.
- taligent 14y ago
  Sure. If you naively assume that lost sales/revenue is just for the iPhone device itself. But every lost sale of an iPhone is also one less person within the ecosystem. An ecosystem that plays off each of its elements to drive revenue e.g. iPhone user buys movies which they can only watch if they buy an AppleTV etc. It's borderline impossible to quantify all of the indirect revenue Apple would lose not just now but in the future.
  - electrichead 14y ago
    Following from that logic, what about the harm that Apple is doing to the Android ecosystem by preventing the sale of these phones when they are supposed to be sold? If Apple can't prove what it claims, then what of the phones that are not sold in the meantime? Is that equivalent to the value of the bond? Where does that money go? Disclaimer: I am in no way a lawyer, but I think my familiarity with law is about the same as the familiarity of the judge with technology.
    - taligent 14y ago
      Samsung derived the bond amount which did seem awfully low at $96 million.
      - ryanhuff 14y ago
        How many Galaxy Nexus devices do ou think Samsung is likely to sell? It's older hardware.
  - smokinn 14y ago
    How is it borderline impossible? There's a technique pretty much every company that knows what's it doing applies to figure out exactly what you mentioned and it's called downstream impact analysis. I'm absolutely 100% certain if you're an executive at Apple and you ask your finance department what the downstream impact is of an iPhone sale the finance department will come back with numbers for the profit variance when the customer wasn't already a customer, when they already were and a bunch of other scenarios.
    - taligent 14y ago
      In the words of the court, "The Court finds that the full extent of these losses would likely be unascertainable, difficult to calculate, and irreparable." And I fully agree that the finance department would be able to calculate the expected profit per customer for today's products. But what about tomorrow's ? And the next year ? Apple locks in the user at multiple points: apps, movies, TV shows, books, accessories etc.
      - jmduke 14y ago
        You're using circular logic. "The court finds theory of irreparable harm to be plausible because the court finds that the full extent of these losses would be irreparable." OP's entire argument is that the court's finding is incorrect and that's why its a victory for Apple's lawyers -- I think you're severely underestimating the forecasting techniques used, especially in a company as competent as Apple.
        Tloewald 14y ago
        The OP did not address this argument, but merely asserted that no irreparable harm would be done because you could simply pay damages. The court has said that calculating damages is impossible. It doesn't seem to me that incalculable implies irreparable but it's certainly a defensible position.
    - jshen 14y ago
      I'm absolutely 100% certain that the analysis you speak of is an educated guess at best. I think it is very easy to imagine irreparable harm being done.
  - kalleboo 14y ago
    If the RIAA can sue Limewire for more than the GDP of this entire planet[1] for damages from file sharing, surely Apple can sue Samsung for downstream damages within their ecosystem. [1]http://www.pcworld.com/article/223431/riaa_thinks_limewire_owes_75_trillion_in_damages.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/223431/riaa_thinks_limewire_o...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
flatline3 14y ago
I think it's unfortunate that taligent has been downvoted into the negatives, because he (or she) is correct. How much is market leadership worth? How big of a check would Apple have to write RIM to restore their market advantage? How big of a check would Apple have to write Nokia to put them back where they were in the marketplace 4 years ago? I'd argue that there is no check large enough to restore a lost market advantage. If Apple won their current market position through innovation, and Samsung is eroding it by taking advantage of that innovation counter to patent law, there's no reasonable amount Samsung could pay to set things to right.
- jvm 14y ago
  > I'd argue that there is no check large enough to restore a lost market advantage. I think you're considering the status or intangible satisfaction of being the market leader. That is not what Apple's shareholders are interested in. They are interested in money. If Apple had the choice between getting a check for all the money they would ever earn for all their products and liquidating the company, vs. remaining in business, they would close their doors, cash the check and pop the champagne. And that check would be worth much more than a "lost market advantage." Now they're probably not going to get such a check. But if not that's because the court will deem they don't deserve it. But the real reason they want this is that it will clearly do much more harm to Samsung than it will diminish their case against Samsung, better yet, they still get to bloody Samsung's nose even if the court eventually rules against them!
  - flatline3 14y ago
    Apple hasn't innovated into market leadership for status or intangible satisfaction. They've done it because that's what you have to do to keep those "big checks" rolling in. If Samsung gobbles up market share, a big check won't bring that back, and a check big enough to account for it would probably bankrupt Samsung (assuming you could ever calculate what that numer would be). Let's pretend that Samsung drove Apple out of business by rapidly copying Apple's R&D and competing directly on price. Just how big of a check would be required to set things to right? We can use an analogy instead of hypotheticals. Imagine I've stockpiled grain for the winter. Winter has arrived, and suddenly, so does the army. They commandeer my grain and promise to write a check for its market value. The next spring, I get the check in the mail. Unfortunately for me, my family already starved.

ars 14y ago

Of course it isn't. It's easy to repair: Apple gets paid a fine. This is almost a classic example of repairable harm. The harm to Samsung is actually much worse (they are blocked, as opposed to just having to compete), yet the bond is supposed to make them whole.

jellicle 14y ago

You don't know anything about the law, but you felt you had to chime in, huh? >Apple can't get back lost sales and revenue Unless Samsung was, you know, required to write them a check. For damages. If they lost. Which is how such cases usually proceed.

taligent 14y ago
Sure. If you naively assume that lost sales/revenue is just for the iPhone device itself. But every lost sale of an iPhone is also one less person within the ecosystem. An ecosystem that plays off each of its elements to drive revenue e.g. iPhone user buys movies which they can only watch if they buy an AppleTV etc. It's borderline impossible to quantify all of the indirect revenue Apple would lose not just now but in the future.
- electrichead 14y ago
  Following from that logic, what about the harm that Apple is doing to the Android ecosystem by preventing the sale of these phones when they are supposed to be sold? If Apple can't prove what it claims, then what of the phones that are not sold in the meantime? Is that equivalent to the value of the bond? Where does that money go? Disclaimer: I am in no way a lawyer, but I think my familiarity with law is about the same as the familiarity of the judge with technology.
  - taligent 14y ago
    Samsung derived the bond amount which did seem awfully low at $96 million.
    - ryanhuff 14y ago
      How many Galaxy Nexus devices do ou think Samsung is likely to sell? It's older hardware.
- smokinn 14y ago
  How is it borderline impossible? There's a technique pretty much every company that knows what's it doing applies to figure out exactly what you mentioned and it's called downstream impact analysis. I'm absolutely 100% certain if you're an executive at Apple and you ask your finance department what the downstream impact is of an iPhone sale the finance department will come back with numbers for the profit variance when the customer wasn't already a customer, when they already were and a bunch of other scenarios.
  - taligent 14y ago
    In the words of the court, "The Court finds that the full extent of these losses would likely be unascertainable, difficult to calculate, and irreparable." And I fully agree that the finance department would be able to calculate the expected profit per customer for today's products. But what about tomorrow's ? And the next year ? Apple locks in the user at multiple points: apps, movies, TV shows, books, accessories etc.
    - jmduke 14y ago
      You're using circular logic. "The court finds theory of irreparable harm to be plausible because the court finds that the full extent of these losses would be irreparable." OP's entire argument is that the court's finding is incorrect and that's why its a victory for Apple's lawyers -- I think you're severely underestimating the forecasting techniques used, especially in a company as competent as Apple.
      - Tloewald 14y ago
        The OP did not address this argument, but merely asserted that no irreparable harm would be done because you could simply pay damages. The court has said that calculating damages is impossible. It doesn't seem to me that incalculable implies irreparable but it's certainly a defensible position.
  - jshen 14y ago
    I'm absolutely 100% certain that the analysis you speak of is an educated guess at best. I think it is very easy to imagine irreparable harm being done.
- kalleboo 14y ago
  If the RIAA can sue Limewire for more than the GDP of this entire planet[1] for damages from file sharing, surely Apple can sue Samsung for downstream damages within their ecosystem. [1]http://www.pcworld.com/article/223431/riaa_thinks_limewire_owes_75_trillion_in_damages.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/223431/riaa_thinks_limewire_o...
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

flatline3 14y ago

I think it's unfortunate that taligent has been downvoted into the negatives, because he (or she) is correct. How much is market leadership worth? How big of a check would Apple have to write RIM to restore their market advantage? How big of a check would Apple have to write Nokia to put them back where they were in the marketplace 4 years ago? I'd argue that there is no check large enough to restore a lost market advantage. If Apple won their current market position through innovation, and Samsung is eroding it by taking advantage of that innovation counter to patent law, there's no reasonable amount Samsung could pay to set things to right.

jvm 14y ago
> I'd argue that there is no check large enough to restore a lost market advantage. I think you're considering the status or intangible satisfaction of being the market leader. That is not what Apple's shareholders are interested in. They are interested in money. If Apple had the choice between getting a check for all the money they would ever earn for all their products and liquidating the company, vs. remaining in business, they would close their doors, cash the check and pop the champagne. And that check would be worth much more than a "lost market advantage." Now they're probably not going to get such a check. But if not that's because the court will deem they don't deserve it. But the real reason they want this is that it will clearly do much more harm to Samsung than it will diminish their case against Samsung, better yet, they still get to bloody Samsung's nose even if the court eventually rules against them!
- flatline3 14y ago
  Apple hasn't innovated into market leadership for status or intangible satisfaction. They've done it because that's what you have to do to keep those "big checks" rolling in. If Samsung gobbles up market share, a big check won't bring that back, and a check big enough to account for it would probably bankrupt Samsung (assuming you could ever calculate what that numer would be). Let's pretend that Samsung drove Apple out of business by rapidly copying Apple's R&D and competing directly on price. Just how big of a check would be required to set things to right? We can use an analogy instead of hypotheticals. Imagine I've stockpiled grain for the winter. Winter has arrived, and suddenly, so does the army. They commandeer my grain and promise to write a check for its market value. The next spring, I get the check in the mail. Unfortunately for me, my family already starved.