5 ms·

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

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.
  - creamyhorror 14y ago
    Why are you bringing up such a hypothetical, when clearly Apple isn't anywhere near starvation at all from the impact of the Nexus? If they aren't near starvation, why should they recover the maximum "lost market advantage", if that would only increase the likelihood of them becoming a monopoly? If there is real infringement, why not offer Samsung the option of licensing the patent at a court-determined price? And shouldn't economic/market-health considerations be taken into play? Current law might not allow for these two points, but maybe they should be considered.
    - flatline3 14y ago
      > Why are you bringing up such a hypothetical, when clearly Apple isn't anywhere near starvation at all from the impact of the Nexus? The analogy was intended to demonstrate that when you purloin (or commandeer) someone else's property, it's sometimes impossible to restore their previous hypothetical future, no matter how much money you throw at them. Apple may not starve, but they may very well be irreparably harmed. > If there is real infringement, why not offer Samsung the option of licensing the patent at a court-determined price? See my grain commandeering analogy for why. Apple doesn't want to license these patents to Samsung, because Apple clearly thinks the temporary government-granted monopoly is worth far more than any reasonable licensing fee. > And shouldn't economic/market-health considerations be taken into play? The market seems quite healthy, currently.
      - creamyhorror 14y ago
        > it's sometimes impossible to restore their previous hypothetical future, no matter how much money you throw at them. And my point is, why should it be necessary under the law to restore their hypothetical future? The law doesn't presume to restitute the full losses of people whose property is destroyed by others' acts. I don't have the impression the law generally aims to completely undo big violations of others' rights or contractual terms, only to punish or provide partial restitution after the fact; otherwise we'd be seeing big reversals and small startup Davids suddenly overpowering Goliaths who had unfairly crushed them out of existence. Not that this even applies in this case; Apple is no small scrappy David, and it's relying on imo broken patents. > Apple doesn't want to license these patents to Samsung, because Apple clearly thinks the temporary government-granted monopoly is worth far more than any reasonable licensing fee. I meant that the court should compel Apple to offer the licensing option, not that it would benefit Apple to do this. Ideally, though, the court should simply overturn the patents (which I hope is done in the subsequent hearings). Patents on metasearch, linkification and slide-to-unlock simply threaten the rest of the industry.
novalis 14y ago
"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." Let us say that first "If" is held by the judge as a given and that allows for him to deny the same rights to the other party. How does that work at all ? When one of these gets overturned "there's no reasonable amount" Apple "could pay to set things"..."right.". How is that loss calculated ? Is it calculated at all ? This automatic assumption after the cry wolf turns to nothing in the end and the plaintiff abused the law and the courts to retain commercial position while trying to cement its stand through jurisprudence. This is a sad state of things and points to a needed overhaul, if not, it will just go on and on until it breaks in the end. Billions of dollars later, the "leaders" will have chocked everyone else not because of innovation but because of bad legislation that assumes too much at the preliminary stages based on incompetent assertions that cannot be equated like other parts of the law. Yet, here we are.
lukeschlather 14y ago
Shouldn't the plaintiff though be the one to take on that risk? If the damage of losing market share is truly irreparable, then the court would be doing irreparable harm to Samsung on the basis of Apple's unproven allegations.
- flatline3 14y ago
  As I understand it, a court ruling like this is based on an initial assessment by the Judge that Apple is likely to win, as the patent(s) are currently valid and it appears (to the Judge) that Samsung is violating them.

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.
- creamyhorror 14y ago
  Why are you bringing up such a hypothetical, when clearly Apple isn't anywhere near starvation at all from the impact of the Nexus? If they aren't near starvation, why should they recover the maximum "lost market advantage", if that would only increase the likelihood of them becoming a monopoly? If there is real infringement, why not offer Samsung the option of licensing the patent at a court-determined price? And shouldn't economic/market-health considerations be taken into play? Current law might not allow for these two points, but maybe they should be considered.
  - flatline3 14y ago
    > Why are you bringing up such a hypothetical, when clearly Apple isn't anywhere near starvation at all from the impact of the Nexus? The analogy was intended to demonstrate that when you purloin (or commandeer) someone else's property, it's sometimes impossible to restore their previous hypothetical future, no matter how much money you throw at them. Apple may not starve, but they may very well be irreparably harmed. > If there is real infringement, why not offer Samsung the option of licensing the patent at a court-determined price? See my grain commandeering analogy for why. Apple doesn't want to license these patents to Samsung, because Apple clearly thinks the temporary government-granted monopoly is worth far more than any reasonable licensing fee. > And shouldn't economic/market-health considerations be taken into play? The market seems quite healthy, currently.
    - creamyhorror 14y ago
      > it's sometimes impossible to restore their previous hypothetical future, no matter how much money you throw at them. And my point is, why should it be necessary under the law to restore their hypothetical future? The law doesn't presume to restitute the full losses of people whose property is destroyed by others' acts. I don't have the impression the law generally aims to completely undo big violations of others' rights or contractual terms, only to punish or provide partial restitution after the fact; otherwise we'd be seeing big reversals and small startup Davids suddenly overpowering Goliaths who had unfairly crushed them out of existence. Not that this even applies in this case; Apple is no small scrappy David, and it's relying on imo broken patents. > Apple doesn't want to license these patents to Samsung, because Apple clearly thinks the temporary government-granted monopoly is worth far more than any reasonable licensing fee. I meant that the court should compel Apple to offer the licensing option, not that it would benefit Apple to do this. Ideally, though, the court should simply overturn the patents (which I hope is done in the subsequent hearings). Patents on metasearch, linkification and slide-to-unlock simply threaten the rest of the industry.

novalis 14y ago

"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." Let us say that first "If" is held by the judge as a given and that allows for him to deny the same rights to the other party. How does that work at all ? When one of these gets overturned "there's no reasonable amount" Apple "could pay to set things"..."right.". How is that loss calculated ? Is it calculated at all ? This automatic assumption after the cry wolf turns to nothing in the end and the plaintiff abused the law and the courts to retain commercial position while trying to cement its stand through jurisprudence. This is a sad state of things and points to a needed overhaul, if not, it will just go on and on until it breaks in the end. Billions of dollars later, the "leaders" will have chocked everyone else not because of innovation but because of bad legislation that assumes too much at the preliminary stages based on incompetent assertions that cannot be equated like other parts of the law. Yet, here we are.

lukeschlather 14y ago

Shouldn't the plaintiff though be the one to take on that risk? If the damage of losing market share is truly irreparable, then the court would be doing irreparable harm to Samsung on the basis of Apple's unproven allegations.

flatline3 14y ago
As I understand it, a court ruling like this is based on an initial assessment by the Judge that Apple is likely to win, as the patent(s) are currently valid and it appears (to the Judge) that Samsung is violating them.