User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 14485
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:16 pm

U.S. court clears Samsung phone, hands Apple setback

While it's a minor setback, it makes me wonder if this is not the last time we'll read:

Quote:

In its opinion on Thursday, the Federal Circuit reversed the injunction entirely, saying that (Judge) Koh abused her discretion.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
D L X
Posts: 11699
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:32 pm

"Abuse of discretion" is a term of art in the legal world. It basically means that she did something she wasn't supposed to do, i.e. commit an error that can be reversed. It's nowhere near as sinister as it sounds. (Usually.)

In this case, Apple requested an injunction at the start of the case (basically an order forbidding someone from doing something) preventing Samsung from selling the Galaxy Note because it likely infringed Apple's patents. But to get an injunction, you have to prove that the infringement of your patent will be the substantial cause of irreparable economic damage. To do that, you have to show that people buy Galaxies because it has this particular feature. Judge Koh thought Apple had shown that the patent and the damages were directly tied. The Federal Circuit thought the tie hadn't been shown. Here's the key statement by the Federal Circuit:

Quote:
If the patented feature does not drive the demand for the product, sales would be lost even if the offending feature were absent from the accused product.

So now, Apple would have to go back and show the link between the patent and the economic loss, by showing that this patent (basically a search window for the entire device's contents) is the reason that people by Galaxy Notes.* That's going to be hard since I'm pretty sure people don't buy Galaxies for its search window.

But to fans of either product lines - if you are talking about the $1 B jury verdict however, this ruling has nothing to do with that. Furthermore, a judge does not abuse discretion when a jury reaches a verdict.



* FWIW, I think that's a BS patent.
 
Asturias
Posts: 1953
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:32 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:40 pm

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
While it's a minor setback, it makes me wonder if this is not the last time we'll read:

I'd be surprised if just about everything that this judge Koh has touched won't be overturned one way or another, she was a little bit too excited to use extreme tools on behalf of Apple.

As for the 1 billion dollar verdict, that one is also in risk of being overturned. Judge Koh being repremanded by a superior court just increases those odds.
Tonight we fly
 
D L X
Posts: 11699
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:55 pm

Quoting Asturias (Reply 2):
Judge Koh being repremanded by a superior court just increases those odds.

As I said in the post above, this was not a "reprimand."

Here is the opinion:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/...tories/opinions-orders/12-1507.pdf
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 14485
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:18 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 1):
Galaxy Note

I think this report is referring to the Nexus, but there are so many similar products being discussed so it's hard to keep them all straight.

Quoting D L X (Reply 1):
But to get an injunction, you have to prove that the infringement of your patent will be the substantial cause of irreparable economic damage. To do that, you have to show that people buy Galaxies because it has this particular feature.

That seems to be a high hurdle to clear.

I hope some of the other sillier "appearance" patents get squashed, but I understand that the jury has spoken.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
D L X
Posts: 11699
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:03 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 4):
I think this report is referring to the Nexus

You're totally right. I wrote the wrong model.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 4):
That seems to be a high hurdle to clear.

Yup. It ain't gonna happen.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 4):
I hope some of the other sillier "appearance" patents get squashed

I can't go that far, because often the appearance is patented because finding an efficient way to package things is incredibly hard, but incredibly easy to copy.

Case in point: the self-collapsing cardboard box. Some engineers had to sit long and hard about how to cut and perforate a sheet of cardboard so that applying human pressure to it would make it turn into a box. But with no patent, everyone can copy it -- that engineer's work didn't benefit him much.


But search windows have been around since at least 1996.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 14485
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:21 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 5):
Case in point: the self-collapsing cardboard box. Some engineers had to sit long and hard about how to cut and perforate a sheet of cardboard so that applying human pressure to it would make it turn into a box. But with no patent, everyone can copy it -- that engineer's work didn't benefit him much.

Yes, but that's about functionality (applying human pressure to it would make it turn into a box) more than appearance.

In the Apple-Samsung thing, there are both appearance things (rounded corners) as well as functionality things (pinch to shrink), and I think the appearance things are silly.

Even the words "ornamental decoration" are silly. Yes, it may cost you a lot to design a decorative ornament, but once it's out there, it's appearance is going to be copied, just deal with it.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
D L X
Posts: 11699
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:07 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
Yes, but that's about functionality (applying human pressure to it would make it turn into a box) more than appearance.

It's the appearance of the sheet of cardboard before it is pushed into a box that is patented. Inherent in every design patent is that the design aids a function. You may not like that the shape of an iPhone has been patented, but that shape aids the functionality of the device. (And also to be fair, which very very few commentators have ever been on this issue, the design is not merely a rectangle with rounded corners, but also with a tableau of icons arranged in a particular way, with buttons arranged in a particular way and smooth surfaces in particular places. If the accused devices doesn't have ALL of those features, it does not infringe. Having a rectangular shape with rounded corners is not what got Samsung into trouble.)

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
it's appearance is going to be copied

There have in the United States always been laws against copying appearance, dating all the way back to the Constitution. It isn't silly.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 14485
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:33 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 7):
Inherent in every design patent is that the design aids a function.

How does that reconcile with the word "ornamental", which was prominently used in the coverage of Apple-Samsung?

Quote:

or·na·ment
1. an accessory, article, or detail used to beautify the appearance of something to which it is added or of which it is a part: architectural ornaments.

There's a big difference between beautifying the appearance of something vs design that aids function.

A pattern in the icing on a cupcake beautifies its appearance, but doesn't make it any easier to eat.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
D L X
Posts: 11699
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:41 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 8):
How does that reconcile with the word "ornamental", which was prominently used in the coverage of Apple-Samsung?

Don't put too much stock in the coverage of the trial. I have yet to see an article outside the legal press that did a decent job of explaining what a design patent is. But yes, ornamental things may also be functional. A fancy doorknob is a prototypical example.


Anyway, I don't want to dominate this thread with legalese (which I fear I may have already done), so I'm going to bow out for a while. Cool?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 14485
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:44 pm

Sure - thanks for increasing my understanding of the issues!
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6147
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:32 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 5):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 4):
I hope some of the other sillier "appearance" patents get squashed

I can't go that far, because often the appearance is patented because finding an efficient way to package things is incredibly hard, but incredibly easy to copy.

But the thing is some are just really silly, such as "the bezel".

Quoting D L X (Reply 7):
Having a rectangular shape with rounded corners is not what got Samsung into trouble.)

The bezel got Samsung in trouble:

Quote:
"Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents," Ilagan said, "it's easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products, because it was all the same. Like the trade dress -- once you determine Samsung violated the trade dress, the flat screen with the bezel...then you go down the products to see if it had a bezel. But we took our time. We didn't rush. We had a debate before we made a decision. Sometimes it was getting heated." ...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57...ve-apple-samsung-juror-speaks-out/

Is a bezel is really that new and unique and something that was not obvious? Really? Just go down a list an see if it has a bezel and if it does then it infringes.... it's crazy.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20150
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:13 pm

I'm terribly sorry, but my heart bleeds. Oh noes! One of the largest corporations in the world has suffered a minor setback against another of the largest corporations in the world! Alone, Apple has enough liquidity on hand to pay off the national debt of a few third-world countries.

I have never understood the point of these patent battles, anyway. It seems rather interneceine to me. Costs a lot of money on both sides and rarely has any sort of meaningful outcome.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:20 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
I have never understood the point of these patent battles, anyway. It seems rather interneceine to me. Costs a lot of money on both sides and rarely has any sort of meaningful outcome.

Don't forget all the public money being spent
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 14485
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Sat Oct 13, 2012 3:48 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
I have never understood the point of these patent battles, anyway. It seems rather interneceine to me. Costs a lot of money on both sides and rarely has any sort of meaningful outcome.

I was reading that Jobs was quite angry about having to pay for a license due to a trivial patent on a previous program and insisted that on iPod and iPhone that they "patent everything".

That was why the war chest was full of patents when he decided that Andriod was a rip-off and that he'd spend Apple's last dollar trying to kill it off.

Bottom line is that much of this particular set of legal battles is about the ego of a person who is no longer alive, and so whatever outcome it has will not even be known to the main protagonist.

[Edited 2012-10-13 08:51:38]
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
D L X
Posts: 11699
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:20 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 13):
Don't forget all the public money being spent

Huh?

What public money?
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4651
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:25 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 9):
I have yet to see an article outside the legal press that did a decent job of explaining what a design patent is.

Which pretty much means the legal community has hijacked common sense and replaced it with convoluted rules that keep them in business.
"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 14485
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:59 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 15):
What public money?

I presume this meant the cost of running the courts, but it could also extend to the government cost of the patent process as well.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:54 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 15):
Huh?

   Always look outside the box to get the full view.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17):
I presume this meant the cost of running the courts, but it could also extend to the government cost of the patent process as well.

Courts absolutely. Not sure but I think the patent process is covered by fees. But there is also the costs to enforce sales injunctions. Particularly import control.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20649
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Sun Oct 14, 2012 12:36 am

Quoting cmf (Reply 18):
Courts absolutely.

Really? Private litigation (which is what this is) does not incur any court fees in the US? That would surprise me a bit.

Quoting cmf (Reply 18):
Not sure but I think the patent process is covered by fees.

Fees do indeed apply.

Quoting cmf (Reply 18):
But there is also the costs to enforce sales injunctions. Particularly import control.

Should be covered by applicable fines imposed on the attempted importer.

Whether such fees and fines actually cover the entire cost is a separate issue.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:46 am

Quoting Klaus (Reply 19):
Private litigation (which is what this is)

How can you have missed all the cases that courts have had to deal with around the world?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 19):
Should be covered by applicable fines imposed on the attempted importer.

Not from what I have seen. We had a case where Sony objected to some items we imported to Germany, but were happy with us importing the same items to Netherlands, France, Spain and UK, go figure. We certainly did not pay anything possibly covering the costs the German government occurred.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
D L X
Posts: 11699
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:55 am

Quoting cmf (Reply 18):
Always look outside the box to get the full view.

Or, perhaps you should back your allegations with facts. There is no public money involved in this case.

Quoting cmf (Reply 18):
Courts absolutely. .

The parties pay the court fees.

Quoting cmf (Reply 18):
Not sure but I think the patent process is covered by fees.

The patent process is paid for (and then some!) by the patentee.

Quoting cmf (Reply 18):
But there is also the costs to enforce sales injunctions. Particularly import control.

No. There is almost no cost to enforcing an injunction. The party that gets the injunction is the natural watchdog over the enjoined party. The instant the enjoined party does what they are not allowed to do, they are sued in contempt. That's the point at which the court is again involved.

I think your information is wrong.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6147
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:43 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 21):
The parties pay the court fees.

They may pay fees but those are significantly different from the costs of the court. The fees do not cover the costs that the court creates. I believe that is what cmf was noting.

Quote:
Court costs (also called law-costs, or in the United States, Attorney's fees) are the costs of handling a case, which, depending on legal rules, may or may not include the costs of the various parties in a lawsuit in addition to the costs of the court itself. Court costs can reach very high amounts, often far beyond the actual monetary worth of a case. Cases are known in which one party won the case, but lost more than the monetary worth in court costs. Court costs may be 'awarded' to one or both parties in a lawsuit, or they may be waived.

In both Australia and Canada, the losing side is ordered to pay the winning side's costs. This acts as a significant disincentive to bringing forward court cases. Usually, the winning party is not able to recover from the losing party the full amount of his or her own solicitor's (attorney's) costs, and has to pay the shortfall out of his or her own pocket. The loser pays principle does not apply to the United States legal system, although a separate system does operate there. In cases in the federal court system, Title 28, section 1920 of the United States Code, provides:

"A judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs the following: (1) Fees of the clerk and marshal; (2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case; (3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses; (4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case; (5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title; (6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title. A bill of costs shall be filed in the case and, upon allowance, included in the judgment or decree."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_costs

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:49 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 21):
Or, perhaps you should back your allegations with facts. There is no public money involved in this case.

Ditto.

Quoting D L X (Reply 21):
The parties pay the court fees.
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/files/rules/schedule_of_fees.pdf
You think it covers the cost. Not even close.

Quoting D L X (Reply 21):
No. There is almost no cost to enforcing an injunction. The party that gets the injunction is the natural watchdog over the enjoined party. The instant the enjoined party does what they are not allowed to do, they are sued in contempt. That's the point at which the court is again involved.

There are plenty of costs in stopping shipments and following processing.

Quoting D L X (Reply 21):
I think your information is wrong.

Ditto
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20649
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:34 am

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
How can you have missed all the cases that courts have had to deal with around the world?

What are you talking about? It is not criminal prosecution pursued by the state but instead litigation brough from private parties to other private parties, with the state having no interest in it. Court fees should usually apply to this kind of thing.
 
D L X
Posts: 11699
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:21 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 25):
How can you have forgotten about the many patent cases Apple is/has been involved in? You have mentioned them several times here before.

No, you just haven't yet explained how this point is relevant.

Quoting tugger (Reply 22):

That article you cite about "costs" (a term of art) is certainly not what cmf is talking about. Costs are the preparation fees, filing fees (sometimes) and very occasionally, attorneys fees, incurred by one party that must be paid by the other party that loses the case. Cmf is saying that the Apple lawsuits are costing the PUBLIC money. He is wrong. The amount of money spent by the public to execute these lawsuits is both negligible, and would be spent even if the suits did not exist at all. In my opinion, this accusation is making a mountain out of an ant colony.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:47 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 26):
So, you're saying that Apple and Samsung are costing the public because they are involving the courts?

They sure are.

Quoting D L X (Reply 26):
Are you willing to say that ALL court cases cost the public because they involve the courts?

I am. Are you trying to state they don't?

Quoting D L X (Reply 26):
Your singling out Apple is where you ran off the rails on this. The courts would require the same amount of money from the treasury regardless of whether this lawsuit existed.

Between the two of us only you are running off the rails. Reality is these cases exist because Apple initiated them. If Apple didn't file them there would be no costs to the court system.

Quoting D L X (Reply 26):
Such as?

The manpower used in handling the stopping of shipment from entering the country.

Quoting D L X (Reply 26):
I just gave you some reasons why it's very inexpensive.

Where?

Quoting cmf (Reply 25):


Seriously? You hadn't even provided anything other than a bald accusation. I'm certainly interested in your argument, but you have to actually present one.

I have provided court and border costs. You don't like them. One can only wonder why you think they are without costs.

Quoting D L X (Reply 26):
No, you just haven't yet explained how this point is relevant.

*sigh*
It was pointed out the both parties spend a lot of money on all the patent battles. Not just this little skirmish. I brought up costs are not only to the two parties. Sorry you missed this.

Quoting D L X (Reply 27):
Cmf is saying that the Apple lawsuits are costing the PUBLIC money. He is wrong. The amount of money spent by the public to execute these lawsuits is both negligible, and would be spent even if the suits did not exist at all. In my opinion, this accusation is making a mountain out of an ant colony.

No, the money would not be spent if there were no cases. Sum up the public money spent on the Apple patent wars and it isn't pocket change. Of course I do not have exact number, I don't know they are published on case by case basis. Please publish if you have them to support your case. But how many hours do you think was spent on just this appeal? It doesn't take much before the fees are eaten up. And then it is the millions of public money spent each year on running the courts that steps in.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
D L X
Posts: 11699
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:57 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 26):
I am. Are you trying to state they don't?

No, I'm trying to understand your argument, and why you would single out these cases.

Quoting cmf (Reply 26):
Reality is these cases exist because Apple initiated them. If Apple didn't file them there would be no costs to the court system.

And that is again where you are incorrect. If Apple had not filed these cases, the costs incurred by the court system would not change. It's not like a new courthouse was built, or new judges were hired, to handle this case.

Quoting cmf (Reply 26):
The manpower used in handling the stopping of shipment from entering the country.

As I explained in Reply 21, that is not a public cost. If an enjoined party dares to violate the injunction, the party that won the injunction will be right there to rat them out. You do not have the government sitting around watching everything to make sure injunctions are enforced when an interested private party is especially willing to do it themselves. (Besides that, the penalties for violating an injunction are severe, seriously discouraging someone to do it anyway.)

Quoting cmf (Reply 26):
It was pointed out the both parties spend a lot of money on all the patent battles. Not just this little skirmish. I brought up costs are not only to the two parties. Sorry you missed this.

I understand what you said. I absolutely agree with your first statement, that the parties have spent a lot of money on these patent battles. (Which of course is their choice.)

Where I very strongly disagree with you is where you say that the public is incurring a cost too. The public costs are negligible.

Quoting cmf (Reply 26):
Sum up the public money spent on the Apple patent wars and it isn't pocket change. Of course I do not have exact number, I don't know they are published on case by case basis. Please publish if you have them to support your case. But how many hours do you think was spent on just this appeal?

It IS pocket change.

As to how many hours were spent on this appeal, I can give you a realistic estimate:

The case was heard by 3 judges at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Each judge has 4 clerks, with one clerk assigned to that case. So, a total of 3 judges and 3 clerks looked at this case.

Each Judge hears about 25 cases a month. So, divide a judge's monthly salary by 25, and that's the apportion that can be attributed to Apple v. Samsung. Multiply that by 3 since there are three judges. A judge's salary is about $160,000. So, the judge cost is about $1600.

The clerks hear about 6 cases a month. They get paid around $50,000 (give or take). So, divide the clerk's salary by 6, and that's the apportion that can be attributed to Apple v. Samsung. Multiply that by 3 since there will be 3 clerks on the case. That's about $2000.

Let's assume Apple and Samsung pay none of that (though we know that from taxes and court fees, they pay at least some of it.) Is that $3600 what you are complaining about when you talk about the public costs? That is a far cry from millions.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:32 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 27):
No, I'm trying to understand your argument, and why you would single out these cases.

This thread is about the Apple - Samsung cases. Why I talk about the Apple -Samsung cases.

Quoting D L X (Reply 27):
If Apple had not filed these cases, the costs incurred by the court system would not change.

You're wrong. The size of the court system is built on the number of cases it needs to deal with. We would not keep the same size and have everyone rolling thumbs while waiting for cases to be filed.

Quoting D L X (Reply 27):
As I explained in Reply 21, that is not a public cost. If an enjoined party dares to violate the injunction, the party that won the injunction will be right there to rat them out. You do not have the government sitting around watching everything to make sure injunctions are enforced when an interested private party is especially willing to do it themselves. (Besides that, the penalties for violating an injunction are severe, seriously discouraging someone to do it anyway.)

Right, Apple have their own contracted people opening containers at the ports to verify content.

As I said I have been through a case similar to this in Germany. Our costs were for lawyers, inventory and opportunity losses. The German government spent a lot of money sitting in the middle between two companies.

Quoting D L X (Reply 27):
The case was heard by 3 judges at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Each judge has 4 clerks, with one clerk assigned to that case. So, a total of 3 judges and 3 clerks looked at this case.

Each Judge hears about 25 cases a month. So, divide a judge's monthly salary by 25, and that's the apportion that can be attributed to Apple v. Samsung. Multiply that by 3 since there are three judges. A judge's salary is about $160,000. So, the judge cost is about $1600.

The clerks hear about 6 cases a month. They get paid around $50,000 (give or take). So, divide the clerk's salary by 6, and that's the apportion that can be attributed to Apple v. Samsung. Multiply that by 3 since there will be 3 clerks on the case. That's about $2000.

Let's assume Apple and Samsung pay none of that (though we know that from taxes and court fees, they pay at least some of it.) Is that $3600 what you are complaining about when you talk about the public costs? That is a far cry from millions.

You did not even get the judges salary right. Then start adding up the costs of the rest of "patent battles", as "patent battles" is the scope, and it isn't the pocket change you try to make it..
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
D L X
Posts: 11699
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:42 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 29):
Quoting D L X (Reply 27):
No, I'm trying to understand your argument, and why you would single out these cases.

This thread is about the Apple - Samsung cases. Why I talk about the Apple -Samsung cases.

I am on the same page with this.

Quoting cmf (Reply 29):
Right, Apple have their own contracted people opening containers at the ports to verify content.

That's not necessary. The injunction forbade Samsung from selling the Galaxy Nexus. Don't you think that if Samsung sold it anyway, people would know?

Quoting cmf (Reply 29):
The size of the court system is built on the number of cases it needs to deal with. We would not keep the same size and have everyone rolling thumbs while waiting for cases to be filed.

And Apple and Samsung are but a small fraction of the civil cases that get filed every day. This is why I do not understand why you have singled out these cases.

Quoting cmf (Reply 29):
As I said I have been through a case similar to this in Germany. Our costs were for lawyers, inventory and opportunity losses. The German government spent a lot of money sitting in the middle between two companies.

I can not lay claim to any knowledge of how things are done in Germany. However, don't assume that what happens in Germany happens in the United States or elsewhere. If it a problem in Germany, I would suspect that Germany will at some point move to fix the problem.

Quoting cmf (Reply 29):
You did not even get the judges salary right.

I certainly didn't miss by any appreciable amount. 160,000 is absolutely in the ballpark, even if there have been a few COLA increases since I last heard the figure. Unless you're going to say that judges make millions (which they do not) there's no way that the difference in salary between what I said and what you believe it is improves your argument.

Quoting cmf (Reply 29):
Then start adding up the costs of the rest of "patent battles", as "patent battles" is the scope, and it isn't the pocket change you try to make it..


You asked me specifically about how much was spent on this appeal. My figure is pretty accurate: $3600. But let's say I'm off by a factor of three even. Now we're looking at $10,800. That's still a drop in the bucket. It could be less than what Apple paid the government to get the patent in the first place. On top of that, how much do you think Apple and Samsung paid in taxes last year?
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:36 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 29):
And Apple and Samsung are but a small fraction of the civil cases that get filed every day. This is why I do not understand why you have singled out these cases.

Why are you so afraid of talking about the topic of the thread. We are talking Apple Samsung. We are not talking Joe Doe vs Jane Doe.

Don't assume they don't.

Quoting D L X (Reply 29):
I certainly didn't miss by any appreciable amount. 160,000 is absolutely in the ballpark, even if there have been a few COLA increases since I last heard the figure. Unless you're going to say that judges make millions (which they do not) there's no way that the difference in salary between what I said and what you believe it is improves your argument.

You claimed court fees cover public cost. Then you do a very simplistic calculation where you don't even get the numbers you include right and even so the cost comes out much higher than the court fees and thus voiding your argument.

Then consider this skirmish is possible the cheapest in the war and add up all the other battles and you have the public cost.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
D L X
Posts: 11699
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:35 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 30):

Quoting D L X (Reply 29):
And Apple and Samsung are but a small fraction of the civil cases that get filed every day. This is why I do not understand why you have singled out these cases.

Why are you so afraid of talking about the topic of the thread. We are talking Apple Samsung. We are not talking Joe Doe vs Jane Doe.

I haven't feared from addressing Apple v. Samsung at all! It's possible that I was not clear, because there is clearly a disconnect between what I am trying to say, and what you are understanding I have said. If it's my lack of clarity, I apologize, but I've been talking about Apple v. Samsung all along. What I will not do is extricate this line of cases from the reality that the courts are hearing thousands of other cases. This is the infrastructure. To me, your argument sounds like you saying that UPS costs the public money because UPS uses roads. Well, that conversation is a non-starter if you cannot recognize that if UPS didn't exist, the roads still would.

In real terms, the cases that you singled out (Apple and Samsung) do not add a public cost. The reason why that fact is true is because of the other cases heard by the court system. You cannot remove the fact that the cases you have singled out are surrounded by other cases, which affect the public cost.

Quoting cmf (Reply 30):
You claimed court fees cover public cost.

No, I did not say that.

Quoting cmf (Reply 30):
Then you do a very simplistic calculation where you don't even get the numbers you include right

If you're going to say that my numbers are way off (which they are not), please provide us with the correct numbers then.

Quoting cmf (Reply 30):
Then consider this skirmish is possible the cheapest in the war and add up all the other battles and you have the public cost.

Appeals are fairly cheap, I will grant you that. However, trials incur a lot more fees. (You cited the fee schedule for the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which does not, and would not ever, have anything to do with an Apple or Samsung case.)

Additionally, you have again avoided addressing the fact that Apple and Samsung have paid for these courts via taxes (which are substantial) and patent fees, which for a large entity, are also substantial.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:59 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 31):
In real terms, the cases that you singled out (Apple and Samsung) do not add a public cost. The reason why that fact is true is because of the other cases heard by the court system. You cannot remove the fact that the cases you have singled out are surrounded by other cases, which affect the public cost.

As clearly stated even by the minimal court costs you calculated, there is public cost.

The attempt to say that they do not count because if it wasn't for this case then they would be spent on something else is not a coherent argument. Correcting your UPS analogy. You're trying to make the argument that because the truck will drive there is no cost to the packages being transported. Reality is that the cost is allocated to all packages being transported. No-one is getting a free ride, and if you use more of the capacity you pay more than someone taking less. But you always get a share of the cost.

Quoting D L X (Reply 31):
No, I did not say that.

You did.

Quoting D L X (Reply 21):
The parties pay the court fees.

Follow the previous arguments and there is no doubt.

Quoting D L X (Reply 31):
If you're going to say that my numbers are way off (which they are not), please provide us with the correct numbers then.

Way off is on you. I said they are simplistic and that you did not get the judges salaries right. They are simplistic because you only included salaries for the most directly involved participants.

I do not have the exact numbers case by case. I don't know they are published that way. I do know large amounts of money is spent on running courts each year. I do know these Apples - Samsung cases have taken a lot of court time around the world. You don't need to go further than that to understand there is significant cost.

Quoting D L X (Reply 31):
Additionally, you have again avoided addressing the fact that Apple and Samsung have paid for these courts via taxes (which are substantial) and patent fees, which for a large entity, are also substantial.

Isn't it amazing that you have gone from stating there is no public money involved to now saying the are paid by the substantial taxes of the involved companies?

Reality is that paying taxes does not give you a certain number of court hours. It isn't how taxes work. Taxes are there to pay all public costs not covered by direct fees. If we don't need to spend tax money on court cases then we can use that money more productively, or not even collect it.

Going down your argument the case is that these companies do not pay enough taxes as we have to borrow money to cover the revenue shortages. But that is a different discussion.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2660
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:32 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 31):
To me, your argument sounds like you saying that UPS costs the public money because UPS uses roads. Well, that conversation is a non-starter if you cannot recognize that if UPS didn't exist, the roads still would.

That's the worst argument I've ever heard! If you chopped the number of vehicles on the roads by a factor of ten, what do you suppose the effect would be on the required transport budget for the upkeep of those roads?

Would it go up, down or stay the same?

Quoting cmf (Reply 32):
Reality is that paying taxes does not give you a certain number of court hours. It isn't how taxes work. Taxes are there to pay all public costs not covered by direct fees. If we don't need to spend tax money on court cases then we can use that money more productively, or not even collect it.

Entirely correct. I don't judge Apple or Samsung particularly harshly for bringing these lawsuits as I think the cost is relatively small, and if they are as frivolous as some of them seem they will hopefully get tossed out quickly. But to say the cost is [i]zero[/] is just demonstrably false.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
D L X
Posts: 11699
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:21 am

Quoting cmf (Reply 32):
As clearly stated even by the minimal court costs you calculated, there is public cost.

And as I have shown, the cost is so minimal that it is not worth singling out, so I'm still trying to figure out why you did.

Quoting cmf (Reply 32):
Correcting your UPS analogy. You're trying to make the argument that because the truck will drive there is no cost to the packages being transported.

No, that is not at all the same. Without the packages, they don't send the truck. Without the truck, the road is still there. That's why the road is infrastructure (as is a court) while the truck is not. Your next statement explains why:

Quoting cmf (Reply 32):
Reality is that the cost is allocated to all packages being transported.

Except for the comparatively few toll roads, the cost of the road is not attributed to the cars and trucks that use them.

Quoting cmf (Reply 32):
Quoting D L X (Reply 31):
If you're going to say that my numbers are way off (which they are not), please provide us with the correct numbers then.

Way off is on you. I said they are simplistic and that you did not get the judges salaries right.

Why should anyone believe this counterargument when you repeatedly refuse to provide data? You say that my numbers are off, and you say that that matters, so a reasonable person would infer then that you don't think my numbers are off by a little, but rather are off by a lot. But you won't say how much!

But since you refuse to, I did your work for you.

http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?...ips/docs/JudicialSalarieschart.pdf

Judges got a raise in 2010, and now make $174k a year at the district level, and $184k a year at the appellate level. You might notice my numbers were not off by much, and in no way come close to the millions you suggested in Reply 26.

Quoting cmf (Reply 32):
Quoting D L X (Reply 31):
No, I did not say that.

You did.

 
Quoting cmf (Reply 32):
Isn't it amazing that you have gone from stating there is no public money involved

Please forgive me for rounding a near-zero number to zero, and openly questioning you about why you continue to exaggerate the public cost.

By now you HAVE to admit that you were wrong, and these Apple-Samsung cases are not costing the public millions, at least in the United States. As I said earlier, I have no idea how much they cost in Germany (ask Klaus perhaps).
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Thu Oct 18, 2012 3:30 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 34):
And as I have shown, the cost is so minimal that it is not worth singling out, so I'm still trying to figure out why you did.

Yet again, add up all the costs of all courts around the world who have been involved in this Apple - Samsung war and we are not talking minimal numbers. Summary at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_I...._v._Samsung_Electronics_Co.,_Ltd.

How much do you think the public cost was for the weeks of trial in California?

Quoting D L X (Reply 34):
No, that is not at all the same. Without the packages, they don't send the truck. Without the truck, the road is still there. That's why the road is infrastructure (as is a court) while the truck is not. Your next statement explains why:

Infrastructure isn't free of charge. I have to allocate infrastructure cost in to every widget we produce, it isn't free of charge. If I add a second shift with a different product using the same infrastructure I can't say there is no infrastructure cost for those items. It gets allocated among all items produced. The advantage is that with it spread over more items the cost per unit is less.

Quoting D L X (Reply 34):
Why should anyone believe this counterargument when you repeatedly refuse to provide data? You say that my numbers are off, and you say that that matters, so a reasonable person would infer then that you don't think my numbers are off by a little, but rather are off by a lot. But you won't say how much!

I state your numbers are of by a lot because you do not include all costs. Specifically the costs of all other courts that have spent much more time.

I also highlighted that your numbers are too simplistic but even so they are much higher than what is covered by court fees. The fees you initially stated ment there was no public cost.

Quoting D L X (Reply 34):
But since you refuse to, I did your work for you.

It was your job to do. You should have done it before you made your calculation.

Quoting D L X (Reply 34):
Judges got a raise in 2010, and now make $174k a year at the district level, and $184k a year at the appellate level. You might notice my numbers were not off by much, and in no way come close to the millions you suggested in Reply 26.

Glad you finally at least looked up readily available data. Now look up the cost of running the courts. Then you have the millions I stated in reply 26. I did not state the Court of Appeals had spent millions on this case. But sum up all the various Apple - Samsung cases around the world and I expect we are talking million plus. Not an insignificant number.

Quoting D L X (Reply 34):
Please forgive me for rounding a near-zero number to zero, and openly questioning you about why you continue to exaggerate the public cost.

If the Appeals court was the sum of the costs I would agree. But it isn't the sum. It is just about the cheapest part in this war.

Again, my comment was in relation to the "patent battles", not just the court of Appeals.

Quoting D L X (Reply 34):
By now you HAVE to admit that you were wrong, and these Apple-Samsung cases are not costing the public millions, at least in the United States. As I said earlier, I have no idea how much they cost in Germany (ask Klaus perhaps).

You are the one who HAVE to admit you were wrong. Despite being reminded over and over it is the cost of all the courts involved you try to reduce it to just one of the smallest costs.

Why is it so hard for you to accept there is a lot of public money in this process?
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20649
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Thu Oct 18, 2012 3:57 am

Quoting cmf (Reply 35):
Yet again, add up all the costs of all courts around the world who have been involved in this Apple - Samsung war and we are not talking minimal numbers. Summary at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_I...._v._Samsung_Electronics_Co.,_Ltd.

How much do you think the public cost was for the weeks of trial in California?

Completely irrelevant without a clear calculation of actual public costs specifically for the respective trials minus the fees paid to the courts by the respective parties. The public costs are much lower than the private ones anyway (particularly for the attourneys).

Quoting cmf (Reply 35):
You are the one who HAVE to admit you were wrong. Despite being reminded over and over it is the cost of all the courts involved you try to reduce it to just one of the smallest costs.

Why is it so hard for you to accept there is a lot of public money in this process?

Sorry, but D L X is a lot deeper into this matter than you are – apart from preconceived notions and assumptions not actually backed up by hard information you have not brought much actual evidence yet, while he did provide a lot of concrete background information.

Apart from you wanting things to be as you say, you have brought very little actual evidence so far.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Thu Oct 18, 2012 4:28 am

Quoting Klaus (Reply 36):
Apart from you wanting things to be as you say, you have brought very little actual evidence so far.

Suggesting that weeks of court time is without real cost is ignorant.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20649
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:00 am

Quoting cmf (Reply 37):
Suggesting that weeks of court time is without real cost is ignorant.

Again: What exactly is the actual remaining cost after all court fees have been paid by the trial parties?

You just keep claiming that this cost "had to be" enormous, but you don't bring actual evidence and you just dismiss D L X's concrete information out of hand.

So again: What exactly is that presumable remaining cost, and calculated on which basis?
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2660
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:00 am

Quoting Klaus (Reply 38):
Again: What exactly is the actual remaining cost after all court fees have been paid by the trial parties?

You're asking for a number which cannot be calculated though. But just because an exact figure can't be given doesn't mean you can assume it is zero.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 38):
You just keep claiming that this cost "had to be" enormous, but you don't bring actual evidence and you just dismiss D L X's concrete information out of hand.

I don't think he said it was enormous, just that DLX's and your initial assertions that the trial costs were covered by the court fees was not a proven fact.

I assume he was driving at the idea that individually each of these cases may be a small cost but together they are significant. DLX then claimed that if the number of cases were reduced the level of infrastructure required to try them would not reduce, which is obviously false, as per the flawed UPS analogy.

Having said all that, I find it hard to believe that the court costs paid by each party are "at cost", ie. only the cost of the individual trial and not marked up in any way. Surely it would make sense to mark them up to cover the "overheads" of the court system as a whole. In which case the net cost would be zero. And anyway, should we be making a moral judgment about what cases should and should not be brought? Isn't that the judge's job? If a lawyer raises too many frivolous cases can't he be disbarred?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 36):
Apart from you wanting things to be as you say, you have brought very little actual evidence so far.

Tone it down Klaus. He is using logic rather than sourced data- it's just as valid a method of debate.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
Klaus
Posts: 20649
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Thu Oct 18, 2012 10:05 am

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 39):
You're asking for a number which cannot be calculated though. But just because an exact figure can't be given doesn't mean you can assume it is zero.

It doesn't have to be exactly zero to be effectively irrelevant.

Absent any concrete numbers all the excitement about the presumably outrageous cost to the public doesn't make any sense.

The stakes in these suits are gigantic, and the costs borne by the parties themselves are substantial, likely dwarfing the public court costs, particularly when subtracting the court fees paid.

It is a mistake to equate the intense general interest in the outcome of these suits with particularly high costs – in Germany, for instance, the court fees rise with the value of the suit in question, so the "bigger" trials can very well end up being a net win for the state.

Larger sums in question don't automatically lead to higher court costs either. These costs have more to do with the complexity of the trial and thus its length (in some countries a jury can also increase costs).

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 39):
Tone it down Klaus. He is using logic rather than sourced data- it's just as valid a method of debate.

"logic" would suggest a formula for calculating the actual amount of public costs in question. Without any actual numbers to plug into it, such a formula just remains utterly pointless.

And if the actual public costs are just not significant, all the exitement is completely misplaced.
 
D L X
Posts: 11699
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:18 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 35):
Yet again, add up all the costs of all courts around the world who have been involved in this Apple - Samsung war and we are not talking minimal numbers.

Sure we are. It's still a multiplier of a small number, spread over many years. Do you have any numbers to refute this?

Quoting cmf (Reply 35):
How much do you think the public cost was for the weeks of trial in California?

I don't know, probably about 5 figures. (175k/year divided by 52 weeks in a year times 2 weeks is about $6700. Let's triple that for overhead, and we get about $20,000. Then subtract the fees paid.) Do you have any numbers to refute that?

Quoting cmf (Reply 35):
Infrastructure isn't free of charge.

Infrastructure is paid by taxes, which you have to admit, Apple and Samsung pay plenty.

On top of that, the patent infrastructure is offset by patent fees, which are quite substantial.

Quoting cmf (Reply 35):
I have to allocate infrastructure cost in to every widget we produce, it isn't free of charge.

With respect, you're not a government. You don't collect and allocate taxes.

Quoting cmf (Reply 35):
I state your numbers are of by a lot because you do not include all costs.

No, you said that I didn't even get the salary right. Then I proved that I substantially did. Then you said you don't know the actual number, but it must be a lot. That's not good enough -- if you're going to claim that the public cost is substantial, which you did, YOU are the one with the burden to quantify it. I don't care if you're exact, but just give us a ballpark estimate even!

Quoting cmf (Reply 35):
The fees you initially stated ment there was no public cost.

You are mistaken. I was not the one that brought up fees. Now, you accuse me of saying the court fees cover the costs, but look at your own argument. You're applying my words to your moving target. First it was simply a nebulous "public cost." Then it was costs to run the courts, which I have shown is not a large cost. Then it was costs to enforce an injunction, which I have also shown is not a large cost. Then it was the cost of this appeal, which I have also shown is not a large cost. Now it's "all the cases worldwide." If you're not going to let it go, provide some figures.

Quoting cmf (Reply 35):
Glad you finally at least looked up readily available data. Now look up the cost of running the courts. Then you have the millions I stated in reply 26.

No sir. This is your job. You made the outlandish claim, now it it YOUR job to prove it.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 39):
DLX then claimed that if the number of cases were reduced the level of infrastructure required to try them would not reduce

No, that is not quite what I said. I said if you removed the cases that cmf had singled out, the cost to run the courts would not be reduced. That is undeniable.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 39):
which is obviously false, as per the flawed UPS analogy.

Please review my response to your argument, showing that the UPS analogy is really quite apt.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:33 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 38):
You just keep claiming that this cost "had to be" enormous, but you don't bring actual evidence and you just dismiss D L X's concrete information out of hand.

Why the exaggeration? I have never used enormous or anything like it. I have used substantial.

You claim D L X's information was concrete. Problem is it was nothing such. He used averages of just two costs, judges and clerks, and came up with an average cost per case of 3,600 USD.

Let's compare that with the budget "For salaries of the chief judge, judges, and other officers and employees, and for necessary expenses of the court, as authorized by law, $35,139,000." http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...s/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/jud.pdf

In 2010 they caseload was 1,208 but it was a very low number so let's use the average which is about 1,515 instead. http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/...tistics/Caseload_overall_83-11.pdf

That makes an average of just over 23,000 USD. Substantially different from D L X's number.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 40):
so the "bigger" trials can very well end up being a net win for the state.

Let us see you substantiate this to the level you request of other statements.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 40):
"logic" would suggest a formula for calculating the actual amount of public costs in question. Without any actual numbers to plug into it, such a formula just remains utterly pointless.

Logic does not require a formula. It only require basic understanding of budget numbers. US federal courts is over 5 BUSD a year. Yes it handles a lot of cases and I am not suggesting it should not be spent, but to think there is essentially no cost does not pass the smell test.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
D L X
Posts: 11699
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Thu Oct 18, 2012 2:56 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 42):
Why the exaggeration? I have never used enormous or anything like it. I have used substantial.

You also said millions. That's why Klaus and I balked.

Quoting cmf (Reply 42):
He used averages of just two costs, judges and clerks, and came up with an average cost per case of 3,600 USD.

I also tripled it for overhead. Seems I wasn't as far off as you suggest.

Quoting cmf (Reply 42):
"For salaries of the chief judge, judges, and other officers and employees, and for necessary expenses of the court, as authorized by law, $35,139,000." http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...s/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/jud.pdf

In 2010 they caseload was 1,208 but it was a very low number so let's use the average which is about 1,515 instead. http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/...tistics/Caseload_overall_83-11.pdf

That makes an average of just over 23,000 USD.

Finally, some evidence! Thank you.

Now, there are some costs at this court that are wholly inattributable to this case (such as travel), but for simplicity, let's use your figure of $23,000. I said $3600, which I tripled to $10,800. You said millions. Which one of us was closer?

Let's go a step further: using this figure, how many cases like this would it take to add up to a million? 43. Are there 43 Apple-Samsung cases in the US? Worldwide even? (By the way, the wikipedia article you cited does not source the number of current cases.)

Quoting cmf (Reply 42):
I am not suggesting it should not be spent

I first posited this argument in what was Reply 26, the remnants of which you replied to in Reply 26: "The courts would require the same amount of money from the treasury regardless of whether this lawsuit existed."

If the money would be spent with or without the Apple-Samsung cases (which you now admit), how can you then single them out and say it is a public cost?
 
Klaus
Posts: 20649
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Thu Oct 18, 2012 3:46 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 42):
Why the exaggeration? I have never used enormous or anything like it. I have used substantial.

Sorry, but that distinction is just irrelevant sophistry.

Quoting cmf (Reply 42):
You claim D L X's information was concrete. Problem is it was nothing such. He used averages of just two costs, judges and clerks, and came up with an average cost per case of 3,600 USD.

D L X has already correctly pointed out that you have made a claim and the burden of proof is thus automatically on you.

You have not been able to bring any evidence for a "substantial" cost to the public, and as long as you fail at that elementary task, there is really nothing any of us need to address.
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2660
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:31 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 40):
It doesn't have to be exactly zero to be effectively irrelevant.

Absent any concrete numbers all the excitement about the presumably outrageous cost to the public doesn't make any sense.

The stakes in these suits are gigantic, and the costs borne by the parties themselves are substantial, likely dwarfing the public court costs, particularly when subtracting the court fees paid.

All of this may be true, but the original claim was that this cost was zero:

Quoting D L X (Reply 21):
There is no public money involved in this case.

...which I think has been demonstrated to be suspect at best. Now the goalposts have moved to "the cost is minimal" which is probably accurate, although it's all supposition without numbers, as you say.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 40):
It is a mistake to equate the intense general interest in the outcome of these suits with particularly high costs – in Germany, for instance, the court fees rise with the value of the suit in question, so the "bigger" trials can very well end up being a net win for the state.

Oh absolutely. Any capital murder trial would dwarf any of these trials in terms of public cost (mainly because nobody involved has any money).

Quoting Klaus (Reply 40):
"logic" would suggest a formula for calculating the actual amount of public costs in question. Without any actual numbers to plug into it, such a formula just remains utterly pointless.

Absolutely not! Why does a formula have to come into it? You can logically prove something exists through a series of connected statements (not formulae), without measuring its magnitude.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 39):
DLX then claimed that if the number of cases were reduced the level of infrastructure required to try them would not reduce, which is obviously false, as per the flawed UPS analogy.
Quoting D L X (Reply 41):
No, that is not quite what I said. I said if you removed the cases that cmf had singled out, the cost to run the courts would not be reduced. That is undeniable.

It's undeniably false, as any good logician would tell you. If you reduce the court's workload by half, you would reduce its costs by some finite non-zero number since it would not use as much overhead costs (you're not going to pay people to sit around twiddling their thumbs). Ditto with any fraction you choose. Therefore each case carries some overhead cost. Therefore if the Apple case were removed the cost to run the courts would reduce. By some infinitesimally small number, probably, but a finite non-zero number nonetheless.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
D L X
Posts: 11699
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:16 pm

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 45):
All of this may be true, but the original claim was that this cost was zero:

Quoting D L X (Reply 21):
There is no public money involved in this case.

And as I said, please forgive me for rounding a near-zero cost down to zero in that post.

You yourself have agreed with me that the costs are not significant.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 45):
If you reduce the court's workload by half, you would reduce its costs by some finite non-zero number since it would not use as much overhead costs (you're not going to pay people to sit around twiddling their thumbs).

At least two fallacies here: removing these cases would not reduce the workload by half. In fact, it would have reduced the CAFC's workload from 1202 cases to 1200. Your analogy of reducing the workload by half is a straw argument.

Second, judges and their staves are salaried employees. Their pay is not set based on how many cases they see. Furthermore, the building costs would remain the same as well.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20649
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:14 pm

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 45):
All of this may be true, but the original claim was that this cost was zero:

Quoting D L X (Reply 21):
There is no public money involved in this case.

...which I think has been demonstrated to be suspect at best. Now the goalposts have moved to "the cost is minimal" which is probably accurate, although it's all supposition without numbers, as you say.

The judicial system is an essential infrastructure, not a bulk commodity, so unless this infrastructure needs to be boosted significantly just for the cases in question here (which is clearly not the case), there is really no plausible accounting for specific costs.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 45):
Absolutely not! Why does a formula have to come into it? You can logically prove something exists through a series of connected statements (not formulae), without measuring its magnitude.

You're very clearly contradicting yourself there – the whole issue of this thread was the presumably "substantial" public costs, which is by definition a quantitative issue which is not accessible to the kind of proof you're thinking of. You actually have to bring concrete numbers to the table here, or at least a plausible estimate justifying the "substantial" qualification.

So far the numbers mentioned for the public are negligible, in stark contrast to the private costs and the litigated values, which do indeed deserve to be called "substantial".

Whether one finds such litigation a nuisance or not is a completely separate issue – but it has no bearing on the actual question here.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 14485
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:22 pm

And today we read:

Apple loses tablet copyright appeal against Samsung

which says in part:

Quote:

Apple has lost its appeal against a ruling that cleared rival Samsung of copying its registered designs for tablet computers, in a decision which could end the two firms' legal dispute on the subject across Europe.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
D L X
Posts: 11699
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Apple Setback: Samsung Phone Cleared

Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:49 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 48):
Apple loses tablet copyright appeal against Samsung

The only comment I'll make (for now) is this is not "copyright." It is a patent case. It hurts my brain to see the media misstate this.

(Think the media calling an A330 with a flat tire an Embraer coming inches from crashing. That's how much it grates.)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, Dreadnought and 31 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos