[iMore.com]

A jury in the new settlement trial, part of the Apple vs. Samsung trial, has determined that Samsung owes Apple an additional $290 million, on top of the $600 million that they already owed at the conclusion of the original trial. The previous amont had been $1 billion, but Judge Koh had vacated $450 million of that.

Full story from the iMore Blog...

[Sammuel1973]

From a legal prospective, I agree with the verdict. Apple was smart to patent everything they have stolen, copied, and bought from others. Steve Jobs said that Apple shamelessly and proudly stole many ideas from others. Paraphrasing, “Good artists copy, great artists steal.” By that notion, Samsung was the better artist, followed the lead of Apple, and beat them at their own game.

What I don’t understand is Apple’s hypocrisy. Phil, Apple’s big marketing guy, claimed that Apple had difficulty selling its phones because many consumers were confused on the look and feel between Samsung and Apple phones. From the look of the 15 Samsung phones, they do not look anywhere near Apple’s phones. Apple consumers are known to be more educated and savvy than other non-Apple consumers, so are they that stupid?

Tim Cook claimed many Android phones are junk, but if Samsung copied Apple phones, aren’t Apple phones junk too? But somehow Samsung is able to still do well in their sales??? How can Apple’s brand and innovation be threatened by all the non Apple phones? Think about it, if consumers want the whole Apple smart phone experience, wouldn’t they buy Apple phones than other knock-offs? Perhaps Apple is indirectly praising Samsung…that there are indeed those consumers who may want a better alternative that suit their needs?

Even though Samsung needs to pay up almost $1 billion, at the end of the day, the real loser here is Apple. THEY HAVE INDIRECTLY ADMITTED HOW WEAK THEY REALLY ARE.

[Premium1]

From a legal prospective, I agree with the verdict. Apple was smart to patent everything they have stolen, copied, and bought from others. Steve Jobs said that Apple shamelessly and proudly stole many ideas from others. Paraphrasing, “Good artists copy, great artists steal.” By that notion, Samsung was the better artist, followed the lead of Apple, and beat them at their own game.

What I don’t understand is Apple’s hypocrisy. Phil, Apple’s big marketing guy, claimed that Apple had difficulty selling its phones because many consumers were confused on the look and feel between Samsung and Apple phones. From the look of the 15 Samsung phones, they do not look anywhere near Apple’s phones. Apple consumers are known to be more educated and savvy than other non-Apple consumers, so are they that stupid?

Tim Cook claimed many Android phones are junk, but if Samsung copied Apple phones, aren’t Apple phones junk too? But somehow Samsung is able to still do well in their sales??? How can Apple’s brand and innovation be threatened by all the non Apple phones? Think about it, if consumers want the whole Apple smart phone experience, wouldn’t they buy Apple phones than other knock-offs? Perhaps Apple is indirectly praising Samsung…that there are indeed those consumers who may want a better alternative that suit their needs?

Even though Samsung needs to pay up almost $1 billion, at the end of the day, the real loser here is Apple. THEY HAVE INDIRECTLY ADMITTED HOW WEAK THEY REALLY ARE.

Because they can't actually admit that the samsung devices look nothing like apple devices and people bought them because they did not want an iPhone, otherwise they would have lost out. The thing is, I guess samsung deserves this but the fact remains now that the iPhone is on just about every carrier as is the samsung devices, the fact that both sell very well makes it seem like it has nothing to do with one copying the other and maybe that dreaded word apple hates.... Options and choice, which they are so against. If apple really wants to slam the door on samsung and gain a ton of sales, make a larger screened iPhone and watch how many switch. All over the web the main complaint with iPhones is the smaller screen.

[Sammuel1973]

Because they can't actually admit that the samsung devices look nothing like apple devices and people bought them because they did not want an iPhone, otherwise they would have lost out.

But that’s just the hypocrisy in Apple; they can’t have it both ways. Either you say your biggest competitor flat out copied you, and admit they beat you at your own game, but you can’t turn around and say their phones are simply junk. If they’re junk, then why feel so threatened? For those consumers who appreciate variety and more options, it’s also a big insult to them.

For Apple to have admitted their fear of Samsung, it really paints a picture of how insecure they really are. If it was a strategy for their admission to win this trial, but at what cost?! If you really think about it, Samsung is really paying Apple $1 Billion to say how inferior they are to them. And do you think this verdict would eventually deter Samsung to change their ways?

If apple really wants to slam the door on samsung and gain a ton of sales, make a larger screened iPhone and watch how many switch. All over the web the main complaint with iPhones is the smaller screen.

Like I said, Apple can’t have it both ways. They already have claimed on several occasions they have the perfect size phones and tablets, but later changed their tune and make their phones bigger, their tablets smaller. Again, you can’t claim something that is perfect, then be too stubborn to admit and negate what the consumers truly want.

It’ll be interesting to see if Apple can bring back the huge number of once loyal customers they had by making bigger phones. Pricing is another big factor.

[jmr1015]

But that’s just the hypocrisy in Apple; they can’t have it both ways. Either you say your biggest competitor flat out copied you, and admit they beat you at your own game, but you can’t turn around and say their phones are simply junk. If they’re junk, then why feel so threatened? For those consumers who appreciate variety and more options, it’s also a big insult to them.

Yes, you can say their copies are junk. Rolex certainly can say a Chinese knockoff of their intellectual property is junk, because while it may look like a Rolex, and function 90% similarly to a Rolex, the quality and craftsmanship compared to the genuine article is junk.

Likewise, Samsung's cheap plastic junk is just that, junk... When compared to the build quality and materials of an iPhone. Even the plastic iPhone 5C feels extremely solid in hand, compared to say, a Galaxy S4.

Samsung may have copied design elements from the iPhone, which the verdict in this court case supports, but they certainly did not copy the build quality or materials.

and I'm sure there are consumers who appreciate variety. Variety would be offering differing products with unique design philosophies. The Samsung devices in this case are not an example of variety in the marketplace. They are copies. Copies are not variety.

For Apple to have admitted their fear of Samsung, it really paints a picture of how insecure they really are. If it was a strategy for their admission to win this trial, but at what cost?! If you really think about it, Samsung is really paying Apple $1 Billion to say how inferior they are to them. And do you think this verdict would eventually deter Samsung to change their ways?

It's not about fear. It's about justice. Apple had a legal dispute with Samsung's designs. Which was upheld in court. Much like high fashion European designers have legal issues with Chinese ripoffs. It has little to do with fear. It has everything to do with confusion in the market place, and potentially lost sales.

It’ll be interesting to see if Apple can bring back the huge number of once loyal customers they had by making bigger phones. Pricing is another big factor.

Bring back? When did they lose huge numbers of loyal customers? Show me a year, where iPhone sales decreased from the year before it?

[Sammuel1973]

Yes, you can say their copies are junk. Rolex certainly can say a Chinese knockoff of their intellectual property is junk, because while it may look like a Rolex, and function 90% similarly to a Rolex, the quality and craftsmanship compared to the genuine article is junk.

Likewise, Samsung's cheap plastic junk is just that, junk...

But what does that say about Apple’s phones when Samsung’s junk phones have sold so well, and now have taken the lead in the global market share? Samsung has done enough damage to Apple, even with their 15 plastic junk phones, so could you imagine the bigger damage from Samsung’s post Galaxy S3 phones? Perhaps they are not junk phones afterall, are they? Since Samsung did copy Apple (and Apple has copied from others plenty), wouldn’t that make Apple phones junk too, by that logic?

…and I'm sure there are consumers who appreciate variety. Variety would be offering differing products with unique design philosophies. The Samsung devices in this case are not an example of variety in the marketplace. They are copies. Copies are not variety.

We will have to agree to disagree on this. There are many worldwide customers who may disagree with you. Variety comes in many factors, aside from designs. Variety can come in different prices, features, battery life, durability, shapes/sizes, etc. Samsung has done amazing to have satisfied many different segments.

It's not about fear. It's about justice. Apple had a legal dispute with Samsung's designs. Which was upheld in court. Much like high fashion European designers have legal issues with Chinese ripoffs. It has little to do with fear. It has everything to do with confusion in the market place, and potentially lost sales.

I agree with you and as mentioned, the verdict…justice was served…but at what cost, really? It doesn’t make any sense for Apple to have paid costly legal fees, just to prop up Samsung in the process. At the end of the day, how has this case hurt Samsung? They will continue to do their thing, and make phones.

Here are some quotes from Phil, the chief marketing guy on how Samsung has affected Apple, paints how really weak Apple is:

"harder for us to get new customers and bring them into our ecosystem."
"At the end of the day," Schiller explained, "there's a cumulative effect of doing all of this that's incredibly damaging."
"It's much harder to create demand and people question our innovation and design skills like people never used to," Schiller said, adding that Samsung "weakened the world view of Apple as this great designer and innovator."

Bring back? When did they lose huge numbers of loyal customers? Show me a year, where iPhone sales decreased from the year before it?

I never said Iphone sales have decreased from the year before, etc. My point is that there have been significant number of former Iphone consumers that have jumped to Android, Samsung is one of them. If Samsung did not enter the smartphone world, I would think many of the lost customers would have stayed with Apple, just saying…

[jmr1015]

But what does that say about Apple’s phones when Samsung’s junk phones have sold so well, and now have taken the lead in the global market share? Samsung has done enough damage to Apple, even with their 15 plastic junk phones, so could you imagine the bigger damage from Samsung’s post Galaxy S3 phones? Perhaps they are not junk phones afterall, are they?

What does that say when fake Louis Vuitton hand bags out sell real ones? It says cheap people want the look of nice stuff, without the price. Same with market share. Kia has a higher percentage of global automobile market share versus Ferrari. That is not indicative of Kia being a better brand. Only cheaper. Likewise, Samsung's global market share is predominantly from their cheaper devices. If you just counted just their flagship stuff, like the Galaxy S4 and Note... Their sales aren't exactly soul crushing.

I'll touch on market share again a little later on.

Since Samsung did copy Apple (and Apple has copied from others plenty), wouldn’t that make Apple phones junk too, by that logic?

Samsung phones are not junk because they are copies. Being a copy and being junk are not synonymous. But when your copy is poorly executed, it becomes junk. Samsung has made some devices in the past that are completely unique, and are still junk. Samsung has made some devices that are not junk. But in the case of these 15 devices, they are copies, as upheld by the court, and they are poorly made junk, compared to what they are copying.

So no, Apple having copied others does not make their devices junk, because they execute well.

We will have to agree to disagree on this. There are many worldwide customers who may disagree with you. Variety comes in many factors, aside from designs. Variety can come in different prices, features, battery life, durability, shapes/sizes, etc. Samsung has done amazing to have satisfied many different segments.

I'm not saying Samsung doesn't offer variety, but in the case of devices that infringe on patents and pretty much copy design language, that isn't variety. That's a copy. A cheap copy, offered at a cheap price, with the intention of selling in place of a competitors device. Not offering an alternative with its own unique offerings.

The literal definition of variety is "a state of diversity. Lack of uniformity or sameness"

Seeing as a copy does not offer diversity, I would not call selling copies "offering variety"

I agree with you and as mentioned, the verdict…justice was served…but at what cost, really? It doesn’t make any sense for Apple to have paid costly legal fees, just to prop up Samsung in the process. At the end of the day, how has this case hurt Samsung? They will continue to do their thing, and make phones.

It makes perfect sense. Apple has shown they won't roll over when someone tries to copy their work. It also sets precedence for future court cases regarding Apple's patents. At the end of the day, this verdict hurts Samsung's public image, bottom line, and future design/copying possibilities.

Here are some quotes from Phil, the chief marketing guy on how Samsung has affected Apple, paints how really weak Apple is:

"harder for us to get new customers and bring them into our ecosystem."
"At the end of the day," Schiller explained, "there's a cumulative effect of doing all of this that's incredibly damaging."
"It's much harder to create demand and people question our innovation and design skills like people never used to," Schiller said, adding that Samsung "weakened the world view of Apple as this great designer and innovator."

I don't see how these quotes paint Apple as weak. They are arguments for why copying anyones patented works can impact their ability to do business.

I never said Iphone sales have decreased from the year before, etc. My point is that there have been significant number of former Iphone consumers that have jumped to Android, Samsung is one of them. If Samsung did not enter the smartphone world, I would think many of the lost customers would have stayed with Apple, just saying…

You said that Apple has lost a large number of loyal customers. There are no statistics that lend any validity to that claim.

If you want to base it on "former iPhone consumers that have jumped to Android" then you can likewise say there have also been significant numbers of Android users who have jumped to iPhone. It's simple really: Fact is, iPhone sales continue to increase, year over year, so the number of people leaving, is smaller than the number of people coming over. I don't see how that can lead to the conclusion that Apple is losing large amounts of loyal customers.

If you want to use market share statistics, I'll stop you right here. Apple's apparent "loss" in global market share, is directly from the market growing. Not Apple's consumer base shrinking. You can compare Apple's total sales numbers year over year, and it is increasing. Period. In fact, if you compare Apple's total global smartphone market share from recent years, it is actually increasing. Not just in raw sales numbers, but also in percentage of market share. From 9% in 2008, to 17% in 2013. It is just not increasing as much as Android devices. How the wall street types and media spin this in to "losing" market share is fairly ridiculous. People parroting it back as fact, is just as bad.

[Sammuel1973]

What does that say when fake Louis Vuitton hand bags out sell real ones? It says cheap people want the look of nice stuff, without the price. Same with market share. Kia has a higher percentage of global automobile market share versus Ferrari. That is not indicative of Kia being a better brand. Only cheaper.

You keep comparing Louis Vuitton hand bags with smartphones, which I find it odd , invalid and unfair. You can compare bags of Kate Spade vs. Coach vs. Louis Vuitton or even their knock offs, but let’s keep the line of products separate. Each of these bags has different versatility, size, price, durability, functionality, etc. Likewise, Kia cars and Ferrari cars both serve different needs. I wouldn’t necessarily say one is better than the other or one is junk, and the other is not. Many folks find Kia cars more practical in their use than Ferrari cars. Likewise, many folks find Ferrari cars to be fast and more aerodynamic. Different cars serve different needs. Diversity is good, makes the world goes round. Getting back to your real vs. fake Louis Vuitton handbags comparison with the “copied” 15 Samsung phones vs. Apple phones, can you please show us the confusion in terms of their look and feel? They are totally night and day. I have seen plenty of real vs. knockoff handbags, and many of them do look and feel like the real ones, down to the design, color, and even little details. I would think durability may be an issue though in the long run. The 15 Samsung phones in question all have Samsung labels with different shapes, sizes, keyboards, back buttons, etc. For Apple to have claimed consumers are confused by the two different brands is downright silly and insulting to Apple consumers. Are Apple consumers that gullible?

Likewise, Samsung's global market share is predominantly from their cheaper devices. If you just counted just their flagship stuff, like the Galaxy S4 and Note... Their sales aren't exactly soul crushing.

But Samsung knows that coming into the smartphone market, that’s why I believe they are smart enough to capture other segments of smartphone consumers by making different phones that suit a wider audience, a wider audience that Apple has neglected. You can’t cry foul against your competitor when you purposely neglected to serve others from the beginning. At the end of the day when it comes down to it, Samsung has sold more smartphones than Apple.

…So no, Apple having copied others does not make their devices junk, because they execute well.

So Apple has copied from other too? Could you please provide examples? Regarding the junk comment, many Android consumers think their phones are of good quality that fit their lifestyle. I guess it’s all a matter of personal preferences.

It makes perfect sense. Apple has shown they won't roll over when someone tries to copy their work. It also sets precedence for future court cases regarding Apple's patents. At the end of the day, this verdict hurts Samsung's public image, bottom line, and future design/copying possibilities.

Well, I don’t see how this verdict really hurts Samsung’s public image, bottom line, and future design/copy possibilities. Just take a look at their SG3, SG4, Note 2, and Note 3 phones, all made after the initial lawsuit. They’ll continue to crank out more phones. If anything, this lawsuit has given Samsung a bigger name and publicity.

I don't see how these quotes paint Apple as weak. They are arguments for why copying anyones patented works can impact their ability to do business.

It certainly does. Think about it, if Apple is not threatened by Samsung, do you think they would have moved forward with the lawsuit? The competition is getting tighter, and Apple knows it. While I agree with the verdict, I just don’t’ care for the hypocrisies in Apple. Apple is smart enough to have patented many things.

You said that Apple has lost a large number of loyal customers. There are no statistics that lend any validity to that claim.

If you want to base it on "former iPhone consumers that have jumped to Android" then you can likewise say there have also been significant numbers of Android users who have jumped to iPhone.

It's simple really: Fact is, iPhone sales continue to increase, year over year, so the number of people leaving, is smaller than the number of people coming over. I don't see how that can lead to the conclusion that Apple is losing large amounts of loyal customers.

I think you are missing my point. Apple’s consumer retention rate has been affected by Samsung, without a doubt. It’s naïve to think that sales is status quo when there has been a big threat. Had Samsung not entered the smartphone market, Apple’s consumer retention rate may not be greatly affected. If you want raw numbers, ask Apple or the carriers.

When doing business, your intention is to grow each year and make more money. Retaining current customers is not enough, you need to acquire new ones along the way. Apple's retention rate has been affected ever since Samsung came into the market, and it has a bigger issue in acquiring new customers, not at a rate fast as Samsung, regardless of their increase of yearly market share.

[jmr1015]

You keep comparing Louis Vuitton hand bags with smartphones, which I find it odd , invalid and unfair. You can compare bags of Kate Spade vs. Coach vs. Louis Vuitton or even their knock offs, but let’s keep the line of products separate. Each of these bags has different versatility, size, price, durability, functionality, etc.

Invalid and unfair? I'm comparing illegally copied intellectual property, to illegally copied intellectual property. Versatility, size, price, durability, functionality, are irrelevant. Being a ripoff of someone else's design ideas is the key component.

Likewise, Kia cars and Ferrari cars both serve different needs. I wouldn’t necessarily say one is better than the other or one is junk, and the other is not. Many folks find Kia cars more practical in their use than Ferrari cars. Likewise, many folks find Ferrari cars to be fast and more aerodynamic. Different cars serve different needs. Diversity is good, makes the world goes round.

I would say one brand pursues a quality of build that the other does not. Ferrari builds with materials and precision that no Kia can touch. I'm sure many people do find Kia's more practical than Ferrari's. Many of whom, can't afford a Ferrari.

If you want an automobile example that is a little more relevant to our conversation: look in to Shuanghuan cars from China. They make an SUV, that is a blatant copy of the BMW X5. A cheap, poorly made copy. Junk.

The difference between that: BMW vs Shuanhuan, and Apple vs Samsung, is BMW sued Shuanghuan in Chinese courts and lost. Apple has won their court case.

Getting back to your real vs. fake Louis Vuitton handbags comparison with the “copied” 15 Samsung phones vs. Apple phones, can you please show us the confusion in terms of their look and feel? They are totally night and day. I have seen plenty of real vs. knockoff handbags, and many of them do look and feel like the real ones, down to the design, color, and even little details. I would think durability may be an issue though in the long run. The 15 Samsung phones in question all have Samsung labels with different shapes, sizes, keyboards, back buttons, etc. For Apple to have claimed consumers are confused by the two different brands is downright silly and insulting to Apple consumers. Are Apple consumers that gullible?

Your personal feelings regarding the 15 phones in question are irrelevant. As are mine. They were found to be using designs, patented by Apple, in a court of law. Period. Arguing personal interpretations instead of the facts becomes a mud slinging fanboy war of biased opinions.

But Samsung knows that coming into the smartphone market, that’s why I believe they are smart enough to capture other segments of smartphone consumers by making different phones that suit a wider audience, a wider audience that Apple has neglected. You can’t cry foul against your competitor when you purposely neglected to serve others from the beginning. At the end of the day when it comes down to it, Samsung has sold more smartphones than Apple.

Samsung can sell all the cheap low-profit margin junk phones they please. Apple doesn't care about that segment, or Samsung's dominance of it. What Apple cares about, is Samsung profiting off of the designs of these cheap phones, designs which were popularized by the iPhone, and patented by Apple. Again, the same as knockoff luxury products. Coach doesn't care that companies sell handbags to poor people. What they care about, is companies profiting off bags being sold to poor people using designs that ripoff Coach's intellectual property.

So Apple has copied from other too? Could you please provide examples? Regarding the junk comment, many Android consumers think their phones are of good quality that fit their lifestyle. I guess it’s all a matter of personal preferences.

No. I'm not Google. Do your own research.

As for personal preference of junk versus quality. I'm sure Korbel drinkers think their champagne is of good quality that fits their lifestyle. Doesn't make it any closer to being Dom Perignon.

Well, I don’t see how this verdict really hurts Samsung’s public image, bottom line, and future design/copy possibilities. Just take a look at their SG3, SG4, Note 2, and Note 3 phones, all made after the initial lawsuit. They’ll continue to crank out more phones. If anything, this lawsuit has given Samsung a bigger name and publicity.

It hurts their public image, because they have been found guilty in a court of law of ripping off another company.

It hurts their bottom line, because they have to pay Apple for this crime, and will probably not be allowed to sell these devices any longer.

It hurts their future design possibilities, because they will have to come up with new, unique designs all on their own for future cheap devices. (Or ripoff a different company.)

They say "All press is good press" and in that, you're right. This lawsuit has given Samsung more press, and a more prominent place in the market. But is it a reputation you'd want? To be a convicted producer of ripoffs?

It certainly does. Think about it, if Apple is not threatened by Samsung, do you think they would have moved forward with the lawsuit? The competition is getting tighter, and Apple knows it. While I agree with the verdict, I just don’t’ care for the hypocrisies in Apple. Apple is smart enough to have patented many things.

Yes. I do. Why? Because it sets a legal precedent that Apple will not roll over. It makes an example out of Samsung, for any other company who would infringe on Apple's patents. It shows everyone they are willing to go all the way.

What? You think Apple should just suck it up and let someone rip them off?

I think you are missing my point. Apple’s consumer retention rate has been affected by Samsung, without a doubt. It’s naïve to think that sales is status quo when there has been a big threat. Had Samsung not entered the smartphone market, Apple’s consumer retention rate may not be greatly affected. If you want raw numbers, ask Apple or the carriers.

No, your point was Apple has lost large amounts of loyal customers, whom you think Apple needs to "win back". I'm sure Apples consumer retention rate has been affected by Samsung. and LG, Motorola, Nokia, HTC, and Blackberry... and vice versa. I'm positive Apple has had an impact in the consumer retention rates off all the smartphone manufacturers on Earth.

Had Samsung not entered the smartphone market? Samsung has been in the mobile phone market, and smartphone sector, longer than Apple. Apple came in and disrupted the mobile phone market. Samsung, as well as every other mobile manufacturer, are doing what they can to fight back. Up to and including patent infringement and expanding in to the cheapest markets on the planet. It's working for them for the most part. But don't think that they came in out of the blue and rocked Apple's world. The scenario is quite reversed.

Apple and the carriers release their numbers. As I said, there is no statistical evidence to support your position. If you feel there is. Please present it. One example, Verizon's recent numbers for the quarter indicate the iPhone outsells all their other smartphones combined.

When doing business, your intention is to grow each year and make more money. Retaining current customers is not enough, you need to acquire new ones along the way. Apple's retention rate has been affected ever since Samsung came into the market, and it has a bigger issue in acquiring new customers, not at a rate fast as Samsung, regardless of their increase of yearly market share.

Yeah, and in this regard, Apple is doing great business. Apple does both of these things fine. Retain current customers and bring in new. They sold 9 million iPhones over a 3-day weekend. The best selling Android handset, the Samsung Galaxy S4, took a month to reach those numbers. Apple's "bigger issue in acquiring new customers" at a rate slower than Samsung, sure doesn't impact Apple's bottom line very much, seeing as Apple is still the most valuable brand in the world, the second highest valued company in history, and making the second best selling consumer product of all time. Why? Because while Samsung is concerned with growing global market share for the sake of growing global market share, by selling a large selection of devices and appealing to a larger segment of the population, Apple is concerned with growing their own higher value market share, since it is comprised of one high margin product line. So while Apple's global smartphone market share is smaller than Samsung's, it is more profitable. By your guidelines to business to "grow each year and make more money" Apple is doing fine. They grow their consumer base each year, a base which makes them more money.

and again... Apple's sales have been impacted by Samsung entering the market? That is again the chicken coming before the egg. Samsung has been a mobile phone manufacturer, and in the smartphone space, before the iPhone existed. Apple is the one who entered the mobile device arena and disrupted the status quo. Not the other way around.