3 ms·
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 e
by 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 agoFollowing 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.
- smokinn 14y agoHow 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 agoIn 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 agoYou'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 agoThe 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 agoI'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.
- enraged_camel 14y agoThere is no such "technique". They can make educated guesses, but that's about it.
- kalleboo 14y agoIf 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...