You are reading the article Apple Explains Why It’s Entitled To Additional Damages In Samsung Case updated in December 2023 on the website Moimoishop.com. We hope that the information we have shared is helpful to you. If you find the content interesting and meaningful, please share it with your friends and continue to follow and support us for the latest updates. Suggested January 2024 Apple Explains Why It’s Entitled To Additional Damages In Samsung Case
As you know, Judge Lucy Koh shaved more than $400 million off the $1.05 billion verdict in the much-publicized Apple vs. Samsung case that took place in August 2013 over patented iPhone technology. The South Korean chaebol admitted to lifting Apple’s inventions, but the jury improperly calculated damages on certain Samsung products, prompting Koh to order a partial retrial in order to re-calculate the remaining damages.
Although Apple is already entitled to more than $500 million in damages (with patent rulings being upheld as well), the company is now demanding an additional $379 million in pending damages over patent infringement and lost sales. Samsung, on the other hand, argues it owes Apple no more that a rather meager $52 million for iPhone patents and design features…
Ina Fried has been covering proceedings the whole morning for AllThingsD (here and here) and basically Samsung said Apple shouldn’t be allowed to patent pretty phones.
Samsung lawyer Bill Price said in closing arguments that “Apple has tried to mischaracterize these patents so they are the iPhone,” remarking that Apple’s patents “are not as broad as they come in here saying”.
He was referring to the famous Steve Jobs rubber-banding invention, filed as a U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381, which covers an iPhone feature that bounces back the screen when the user scrolls to content edges.
Here’s another quote:
Competitors are always looking at rival products to see ‘Where are we lagging?’ Apple does the same thing.
When it came turn to Apple lawyer Bill Lee said to present his client’s closing argument, he opened by saying that both Apple and Samsung agree that the latter sold 10.7 million infringing phones during the time at issue in the case.
These sales have generated $3.5 billion in revenue and Apple thinks it’s entitled to ten percent of that sum, which works out to about the $379 million that Apple is demanding:
No one is trying to take all of their revenues away. We have asked for approximately 10 percent of what they collected for infringing our products.
Apple’s math takes into account a portion of Samsung’s profits on infringing products, a portion of profits it lost due to infringement and a reasonable royalty for utility patents. The Apple lawyer then presented the famous image (see top of post) depicting what Samsung phones looked like before and after the iPhone:
“Documents don’t lie,” Lee said. “In some ways our best witness is Samsung”.
Lee made a point of reminding the court that Apple’s SVP of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller took the witness stand while Samsung brought no executives from Korea to appear in the case:
Samsung brought you no one to explain how they develop their products and why they developed them in an infringing way. Apple sat in those rooms and they invented. They took an enormous risk.
Last Friday, Schiller testified that the iPhone was a “bet the company” product because “we were going to invest all these resources, financial as well as people, in creating this product”. Had it failed, the project could have destroyed Apple as other product lines would get delayed.
The management was especially concerned about the iPod, which at the time was still flying high. To give you a reference point, Apple sold two million iPods in 2003, ten million in 2004 and forty million in 2005. Nowadays, however, the company typically moves a little more than four million iPod music players per quarter.
According to Cult of Mac editor Leander Kahney’s new bio book on Apple’s design guru, while Jony Ive and his team worked on several tablet prototypes, Apple’s executives were really worrying about the iPod’s future prospect:
It was becoming clear that the mobile phone would one day supersede the iPod. Most people were carrying around both an iPod and a cell phone.
At that stage, cell phones could store a few tunes, but it was becoming clear that, sooner rather than later, someone, perhaps a competitor, would combine the two devices.
Another Apple attorney, Harold McElhinny, said in a similar way last year the company took a massive leap of faith moving into a new product category.
Think about the risk. They were a successful computer company. They were a successful music company. And they were about to enter a field that was dominated by giants.
Apple had absolutely no name in the phone field. No credibility.
It’s remarkable to think that Apple, a total outsider in the phone biz, dared to go in all guns blazing and threw down the gauntlet. The company basically challenged such giants as Nokia, BlackBerry and Motorola. In spite of the lack of name recognition in the phone category, it only took a few quarters of iPhone sales to earn credibility.
The jury should get the case later today.
You're reading Apple Explains Why It’s Entitled To Additional Damages In Samsung Case
Apple and Samsung Electronics won’t be able to keep certain pieces of information from the public during their high-profile jury trial that begins on Monday, a judge in California said Friday. But what will be public and what won’t still isn’t known.
The judge set several deadlines over the weekend for Apple’s and Samsung’s lawyers to submit arguments to the court so that decisions can be made before Monday morning.
The two companies had previously asked for chunks of information in documents to be redacted and for certain items of evidence to be sealed so they would only be seen by the jury, judge, and lawyers involved in the case.
Judge Lucy Koh, presiding over the case at the U.S. District Court in San Jose, said she will allow some source code, royalty rates and unreported financial data to be sealed. However, she said she would need to see and review the documents before accepting the requests. Most information will have to be public, she said. She also limited the volume of evidence.
Both Apple and Samsung had been liberally redacting documents and asking that others be sealed before Reuters filed papers with the court objecting to the classifications being made.
For example, in one filing earlier this week, Apple redacted a key figure in its damages claim against Samsung, but went on to list additional damages of $500 million and $25 million and then noted the total was $2.525 billion. Simple subtraction showed the missing figure was $2 billion — something subsequently confirmed in an unredacted filing. Some images purportedly of future products were also revealed.
Koh twice noted that some of the information that the companies claimed as confidential was found in public submissions to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
“You will not be able to seal your own financial information,” she told lawyers for Apple and Samsung.
The court heard similar requests from several other companies that risk having some of their business dealings made public by the court.Uninvolved Parties Seek Exception
Lawyers from Intel, Motorola Mobility, Philips, IBM, Research in Motion and InterDigital asked Koh to allow contracts and royalty rates to be kept private. Koh indicated she was more likely to accept such pleas from companies that had been brought unwillingly into the case.
Presiding over a courtroom already packed with audiovisual equipment and extra chairs, Koh rejected the idea of having each side change seats. “We’re so congested,” she said.
However, after a request by Samsung, Koh did allow a change in the terms used to refer to each company.Ongoing Legal Battle
Originally, Apple was the plaintiff in the case and Samsung was the defendant, but the case was expanded to include one in which the companies were in the reverse roles. The original labels have been used to date, but Samsung is worried that being constantly referred to as the defendant could harm the offensive portion of its case.
Koh suggested they switch the plaintiff and defendant titles during different portions of the case, but then quickly came up with an even simpler solution: to refer to the companies by their names during most of the case.
Jury selection is scheduled to begin at the federal courthouse in San Jose on Monday morning. The two sides must find ten jurors out of an initial pool of about 70 people.
The case is 11-08146, Apple vs. Samsung Electronics, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
What Australian entrepreneurs need to consider in 2023, writes Leigh Travers, Chief Executive Officer at Binance Australia.
Photo illustration by Jonathan Raa/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
We are now well into double-digit percentages of Australians owning some cryptocurrency (Statista cites 25.6%). While the number of holders has experienced a drop from the peaks last year, there is a clear positive trend on a multi-year time horizon. Convincingly, data from a 2023 ASIC survey found that crypto was the second most commonly held investment after Australian shares.
As we move into the new year, Binance Australia believes that collaboration with all stakeholders interacting with Web3 will positively impact the ecosystem’s sustainability and ensure a safer and fairer market for all Australians.Australia’s journey to build a steady regulation ecosystem
A digital asset exchange’s role, first and foremost, is to protect and serve its users. There is a responsibility for every major platform to collaborate with policymakers and regulators to contribute to the development of a regulatory framework with consumer protection and market integrity at its heart. Compliance is a collaborative process, and as a leading platform in the domestic market, Binance Australia wants to ensure consumers are benefitting from Web3 by making it accessible to everyone in a safe way.
Locally in Australia, the government has acknowledged and will work to establish a digital assets framework in 2023. Significantly, the government will prioritise and assess its ongoing “token mapping” work with the industry players and has committed to introducing a licensing regime for digital asset service providers. This is regulation that Binance Australia wants to ensure a sustainable crypto ecosystem in Australia and to ensure there isn’t regulatory arbitrage from overseas operators.
Globally, governments will be looking towards Europe for developments in the Market in Crypto-assets Regulation (MiCA) which is expected to enter force in the first half of the year. The enforcement of these frameworks is likely the first comprehensive regulatory regime tailored specifically to protect investors of digital assets and ensure financial stability while still facilitating space to foster innovation.
Adopting these measures will result in the growth of an industry where Web3 technology, such as digital assets, can operate effectively. Ultimately, we welcome the Australian government’s decision to pursue well-considered regulation in Australia in harmony to provide the utmost security for users and create a fertile ground for innovation within the ever-changing and growing crypto market.To the nation’s financial freedom and beyond
Even as fear, uncertainty and doubt circulate the market, business leaders should not confuse volatility or the behaviour of bad actors with the potential use cases of digital assets and the underlying technology. Web3 is now widespread; on the back of the breakthrough of NFTs into global popularity, leading major brands like the AFL to explore how they can implement Web 3 technologies into their platforms, products and operations.
And while NFTs and fan tokens have come into trend through our love of sport, market interest is high in digital identity solutions such as Soul bound tokens. Soul-bound tokens are similar to NFTs but cannot be transferred and are used to verify users’ identities to authenticate achievements, wallet addresses, and trades. This is particularly important to reduce risks around handling private and sensitive personal identification documentation and remove the friction around using new services and products.So, what happens next?
New technologies are built to be disruptive and challenge the foundations of the status quo. For Web3, we are in the midst of a time where institutions, communities and businesses are exploring the roles each plays in the growth. The ecosystem will grow stronger as regulatory frameworks are developed, and the industry continues to evolve toward greater decentralisation. With blockchain being a borderless technology, Web3 is here to stay. We certainly welcome discourse to get governments, regulators and industry players on the same team to construct an ecosystem where users are secure and comfortable in the crypto market going into 2023.
Leigh Travers is Chief Executive Officer at Binance Australia
Joel Drapper recently made a post which was titled “Why I Unfollowed Everyone on Twitter and Why You Should Too.” While I am friends with Joel and think he is a bright fifteen year old blogger and web designer, I strongly disagree with this post.
After reading his post, I started thinking about this subject quite a bit, and these are the three main reasons I came up with as to why it is a terrible idea to unfollow everyone on Twitter:
Burns Bridges: When you follow someone on Twitter, it’s like you are giving them a virtual handshake and saying, “Hey, I followed you because I think you’re interesting, so let’s connect!” However, when you turn around and unfollow the same person, you are telling them, “Hey, I am no longer interested in you, goodbye!” Doing this on a mass scale is obviously going to alienate a significant portion of your fellow Tweeps. You may not have a problem burning that bridge right now, but you never know when failing to maintain that relationship is going to hurt you in the future (such as realizing you need a favor but can’t go to any of the people who you alienated).
Doesn’t Allow You to Truly Connect: Twitter is a great way to connect with other people and get their feedback. However, this doesn’t work when you go on a mass unfollowing spree. In Joel’s case, the net results of his mass unfollow is he now how has 9500 followers and at last look was, following around 88 people. So, when he tweets something, he is effectively having a one way conversation with approximately 9400 people. This means that while they are getting his tweets, he will not ever get their messages (which could be quite helpful).
Takes Away from the Value of Twitter: If you decide that you are going to unfollow just about everyone on your list down the road, you are probably going to start following anyone and everyone without any hesitation (since you know that you are going to end up unfollowing them soon). Doing this takes away a lot of the value of Twitter. I think it’s important to put at least a little thought into who you decide to follow. For example, I look at several things when deciding whether or not to follow someone. I look at their follower to following ratio, their bio and website, and then make a decision if it looks like someone I’d like to connect with.
Now, keep in mind that I’m not saying that you can’t ever unfollow people. In fact, I don’t think anyone should be obligated to follow someone back simply because they follow you. Also, if you decide you don’t likesome one’s tweets or their personality, you have every right to unfollow them. However, there is a big difference between making that kind of decision and unfollowing nearly ten thousand people at once.
If you have reached a point where you feel like your Twitter account has become unmanageable and you are thinking about a huge massunfollowing , a less antisocial decision would be to close your account and start back from zero (this way you can get things under control without burning any bridges).
A 44-year-old British man was seemingly “cured” of HIV last week. Scientists working on the therapy say that the virus is now completely undetectable in his blood, leading to headlines announcing an “HIV breakthrough” that could “spell the end of the virus“.
But here’s the thing: It’s very difficult to determine whether HIV has been truly eliminated from the body, and even conventional antiretroviral therapy — which the patient was also taking — reduces HIV to undetectable levels. So pinning hopes on a single trial to prove a “cure” is a bit too premature, if optimistic.
The hallmark of an HIV infection is that it targets very specific cells in a patient’s immune system, called CD4 T cells. These are white blood cells that usually detect intruders and corral a larger immune response to get rid of the invading bacteria or viruses. But HIV tricks these frontline soldiers and quickly inserts its own genetic material into the CD4 cells so that it can replicate inside them and use the cells to churn out more copies of virus.
Once infected, cells can’t get rid of HIV the way they can most other viruses. Taking combination antiretroviral therapy, however, stops HIV from reproducing and infecting new CD4 cells. Viral levels start declining and after two to three months of treatment, the levels of virus are so low that HIV is “undetectable” in a patient’s blood, says Janet Siliciano, an infectious disease researcher at Johns Hopkins University.
The problem is that most HIV tests measure the amount of viral RNA in free virus particles floating around in the blood and try to extrapolate the amount of virus hiding inside all infected cells. But in 1995, Siliciano’s lab found that some HIV remains invisible deep inside “resting” CD4 T cells. This silent reservoir can’t be measured by normal blood tests, she says. When people go off antiretroviral therapy, the virus rapidly resurges, and that’s when scientists realize that the virus was hidden somewhere inside the patient all along.
“Everyone has a different number of resting infected cells that are acting as a reservoir. They turn back on randomly, so it’s very hard to predict when someone will experience a viral rebound,” says Siliciano. That is why people with HIV must take antiretrovirals for the rest of their life, she explains.
The only way to know that HIV has left a person’s body is to test many different tissues — not just run a blood test — and keep repeating them over the years. Siliciano’s group is trying to develop one consolidated test.Shock and Kill Strategy
One popular strategy in searching for a cure aims to obliterate the reservoir of remaining virus using a “shock and kill” approach. The idea behind it is that shocking the resting CD4 cells into waking up will force the virus inside them to become active as well. As HIV starts to rear its ugly head and put its mark on the surface of the infected cells, scientists can then boost a patient’s immune system to recognize and destroy HIV-carrying cells while they are vulnerable.
This is the technique used in the recent “breakthrough” by British researchers. The scientists, who hail from six different hospital centers in the UK, are testing an aggressive shock and kill regimen on 50 HIV patients over a period of about 9 months. The anonymous patient initially quoted in The Sunday Times is simply the first of the participants to have completed the treatment. Official results from the trial are not expected until 2023.
“I’m surprised that they would announce this in the press when they only have one patient and are not expecting all the results to come in until 2023,” says Stephen Morse, an epidemiologist and director of the Center for Public Health Preparedness at Columbia University. “There has been such a history of false optimism and false hope with HIV that you wonder why announcements like that are made.”
Even if the trial is a complete success, scientists will have to use caution in interpreting the results, according to Morse. Researchers will need to follow up on patients for several years, testing their viral levels regularly to make sure that HIV is truly eradicated from their system. They’ll also have to conduct a more extensive search for the virus to make sure it isn’t hiding in reservoir cells in the immune system or in other inaccessible parts of the body, such as cerebrospinal fluid or semen, Morse says. “We need a lot of good evidence before we can declare victory over HIV.”
To date, only one person has undergone that kind of rigorous testing. Timothy Ray Brown, who is also known as “the Berlin patient“, is the first and only person who can claim the distinction of being cured of HIV. In 2006, after living with the virus for 11 years and controlling his infection with antiretroviral drugs, Brown learned that he had developed an unrelated case of acute myeloid leukemia. He underwent chemotherapy and whole-body radiation that wiped out his immune system — and possibly the virus with it. Then he received a bone marrow transplant from a donor with a natural immunity to HIV. Researchers haven’t been able to find any trace of HIV in his blood or in multiple brain, gut, colon, and lymph-node biopsies since.
But bone marrow transplants have a high fatality rate, and there are just too many people with HIV — 33 million around the world — to make it a feasible therapy. And they may not even work consistently. Other patients who seemed to have been cured of the virus after receiving bone transplants still experienced a rebound of the virus after ditching their antiretroviral therapy — sometimes after nearly five years of being “HIV-free”.
Any new treatment that successfully eradicates the virus needs to be replicated in larger studies, says Siliciano. It also needs to match or surpass current standards of antiretroviral therapy, in terms of safety and accessibility of the drugs. Scientists also need to develop better, more sensitive assays to test for the presence of HIV. Only then will they be able to say accurately if a treatment is an effective cure for the viral infection.
“It’s a really hard, complex problem, and lots of scientists around the world are trying to work toward a cure,” she says. “But right now we have nothing that’s really close.”
Electric bikes can cost as much as a used car, so having some protection in case it is stolen or damages is just common sense.
There are other considerations, too. Laws vary around the world, but in the UK you can cycle a bike without insurance and you don’t even have to wear a helmet. If you were to knock down a pedestrian or hit and damage someone’s car, insurance can shield you from huge repair and legal bills.
Similarly, an incident might not be your fault: a van turns left and knocks you off, someone crosses the road without looking or you hit a pothole in a dark alley. Safety gear can only protect you to an extent, but it’s risky to ride with no insurance at all.
Bike insurance doesn’t have to be expensive, costing just a few quid per month. However, it can be more expensive if you have an electric bike worth £3,000, in which case it could be around 5-10% of the bike’s value. But this is still a lot cheaper than bearing the cost of replacing the bike yourself if it’s stolen, and a tiny fraction of the legal costs if you injure someone while riding.Where to get electric bike insurance Home insurance
The first place to start is by examining your home insurance policy – if you have one, that is. Most contents policies will cover pedal cycles, but only while they’re securely stored at home – and typically only up to a few hundred, which won’t be enough for an electric bike.
What you can do, though, is to add your bike as an individual high-value item on your insurance and it should then be covered for theft wherever it is, so long as it has been locked up.
The cost for this will vary between insurers, and is always cheaper if you add it when you take out a policy as most insurers will also charge a nominal admin fee to amend the policy on top of the cost of the extra cover.
Alternatively, if you check your policy document you might find that you have personal belongings cover for items away for the home, and your electric bike might be covered under this section so long as it is under the price limit for any single item.Specialist bike insurance
If you don’t have home contents insurance or it’s not cheap to add a bike to it, then another option is to take out a policy just for your bike – or multiple bicycles.
You can use comparison sites to get quotes, such as
You can pick how much public liability cover you want (this is called third-party cover), and whether you want cover for personal injury if you end up in hospital after being hurt while cycling (first-party cover).Specialist bike insurance
You can also go direct to a specialist insurer for a quote, including the following companies:
Specialist insurers can be a good choice if you have a more expensive bike, but always read through the policy to check what is covered and what is not. Also, you might be required to secure the bike with a particular type of lock, and your claim could be refused if you didn’t use one.
Also, watch out for small print in any insurance policy that states your bike must remain locked even if it’s inside a locked shed or garage. Otherwise you might discover you can’t make a claim.Insurance via the bike manufacturer
Some electric bike makers let you pay extra for one or more years of insurance when you buy the bike. Often, these models have built-in GPS which helps to track them down.
One example is VanMoof which charges £270 for three years of theft cover when purchasing an X3 or S3.
They’ll handle the tracking and recovery and will give you a replacement bike if they can’t return your original one.
Another example is Cowboy’s Easy Rider scheme which offers a choice of policies for either €8 or €10 per month.
And if you haven’t yet bought one, check out our roundup of the best electric bikes.Tips to prevent your electric bike being stolen
Lock your bike in a busy area – it’s more difficult to use an angle grinder where there’s lots of people who will see what’s going on and either stop it or at least report it.
Use multiple locks – Don’t buy just one: use several if you can.
Put the locks in awkward places – If possible, attach your lock at the bottom of the bike, which makes it much more difficult to cut through than one at waist height where there’s easy access.
Don’t rely on CCTV – It may offer a deterrent, but thieves tend to wear hoodies and face away from the camera, so even if they’re caught in the act, they can’t be identified and you gain nothing.Which is the best bike lock to buy?
We’ve put together a list of the
Update the detailed information about Apple Explains Why It’s Entitled To Additional Damages In Samsung Case on the Moimoishop.com website. We hope the article's content will meet your needs, and we will regularly update the information to provide you with the fastest and most accurate information. Have a great day!