Menu
Apple experts seek to justify $US380 million damages claim against Samsung

Apple experts seek to justify $US380 million damages claim against Samsung

As the high-profile damages retrial enters its second day of testimony, Apple experts explain how the damages were calculated

How much value do you put on certain features in the cellphone you buy? Most consumers probably don't assign a dollar value to specific items, but the detailed calculations handset manufacturers make were at the heart of arguments Thursday as Apple and Samsung fight over hundreds of millions of dollars in patent infringement damages in a California court.

Apple is asking an eight-person jury to award it $US380 million in damages for infringement of five of its patents in 13 models of Samsung cellphones. Samsung says it should only pay $52 million, so the value of the features covered by the patents lies very much at the heart of the jury's decision.

The proceedings are a partial retrial of a case last year that found Samsung guilty of patent infringement. The jury awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages, but U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh ordered $450 million struck from the award after determining the jury miscalculated the amount. The jury will recalculate damages after hearing testimony. The question of patent infringement is not being reconsidered.

Thursday morning's testimony began with John Hauser, an MIT professor who carries out "conjoint" marketing surveys that seek to determine how much premium consumers put on certain features. Consumers are shown two products that are identical except for a single feature and different prices and are then asked which product they would buy. By doing that again and again, researchers come up with a value for each feature.

Hauser's work determined that for a $199 smartphone, consumers would pay an additional $100 for features covered by three Apple patents, and for a $499 tablet, consumers would pay an additional $90 for the features.

The Apple patents in question cover the phone's ability to automatically switch between single and multitouch gestures, the "rubber-band" effect that makes the screen bounce when coming to the limit of scrolling, and the effect of a tap on the screen to re-center the display after zooming.

The court also heard from Julie Davis, a consultant hired by Apple to determine how much Samsung should pay for the infringement. She and others working on the question spent 8,900 hours looking at this question alone -- an indication of the amount of work both sides have put into the case -- and came up with the $380 million figure.

"I absolutely believe Apple lost sales," said Davis when asked about her analysis.

Davis said she looked at three types of damages: profits lost by Apple from products they would have sold if Samsung didn't offer infringing products; a slice of Samsung profits from each sale due to Apple from infringement on design patents only; and the amount of reasonable royalties Samsung would have paid had it licensed the technology.

The two experts are part of Apple's case to justify its damages claim.

Samsung hasn't called any of its experts yet, so its lawyers spent most of their time trying to plant seeds of doubt into the minds of jurors about the testimony and how, perhaps, it's difficult to assign a simple value to an individual feature.

The case is 11-01846, Apple vs. Samsung Electronics, at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose.

Martyn Williams covers mobile telecoms, Silicon Valley and general technology breaking news for The IDG News Service. Follow Martyn on Twitter at @martyn_williams. Martyn's e-mail address is martyn_williams@idg.com

Follow Us

Join the New Zealand Reseller News newsletter!

Error: Please check your email address.

Tags Appleconsumer electronicsintellectual propertysmartphonespatentSamsung ElectronicsiPhonelegalAndroid

Featured

Slideshows

Educating from the epicentre - Why distributors are the pulse checkers of the channel

Educating from the epicentre - Why distributors are the pulse checkers of the channel

​As the channel changes and industry voices deepen, the need for clarity and insight heightens. Market misconceptions talk of an “under pressure” distribution space, with competitors in that fateful “race for relevance” across New Zealand. Amidst the cliched assumptions however, distribution is once again showing its strength, as a force to be listened to, rather than questioned. Traditionally, the role was born out of a need for vendors and resellers to find one another, acting as a bridge between the testing lab and the marketplace. Yet despite new technologies and business approaches shaking the channel to its very core, distributors remain tied to the epicentre - providing the voice of reason amidst a seismic industry shift. In looking across both sides of the vendor and partner fences, the middle concept of the three-tier chain remains centrally placed to understand the metrics of two differing worlds, as the continual pulse checkers of the local channel. This exclusive Reseller News Roundtable, in association with Dicker Data and rhipe, examined the pivotal role of distribution in understanding the health of the channel, educating from the epicentre as the market transforms at a rapid rate.

Educating from the epicentre - Why distributors are the pulse checkers of the channel
Kiwi channel reunites as After Hours kicks off 2017

Kiwi channel reunites as After Hours kicks off 2017

After Hours made a welcome return to the channel social calendar last night, with a bumper crowd of distributors, vendors and resellers descending on The Jefferson in Auckland to kickstart 2017. Photos by Maria Stefina.

Kiwi channel reunites as After Hours kicks off 2017
Arrow exclusively introduces Tenable Network Security to A/NZ channel

Arrow exclusively introduces Tenable Network Security to A/NZ channel

Arrow Electronics introduced Tenable Network Security to local resellers in Sydney last week, officially launching the distributor's latest security partnership across Australia and New Zealand. Representing the first direct distribution agreement locally for Tenable specifically, the deal sees Arrow deliver security solutions directly to mid-market and enterprise channel partners on both sides of the Tasman.

Arrow exclusively introduces Tenable Network Security to A/NZ channel
Show Comments