decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,051,855 | 289 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,051,855
Authored by: lunarship on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:25 PM EDT
I suspect Apple just got themselves right to the bottom of the customer service
"to do" list at Samsung. And I very much doubt they will be getting
preferential treatment in future, either.

Annoying major suppliers like this never makes good business sense (presuming
Samsung still ARE a major supplier to Apple, of course).

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,051,855
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:25 PM EDT
I'd just tack $10 more on each of those nice new screens that Samsung sells
Apple., That should raise $500 million to pay Apple.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,051,855
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:32 PM EDT
Apple is already shopping around for other suppliers, they know they're burning
bridges by attacking the supplier of 25% (or more) of their components. Like
that retina display which samsung builds... They're talking about sharp so far
as I can tell.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

True, but not until their contract is up!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:38 PM EDT
But Apple won't be able to collect until the Appeal Process
is complete and that could go all the way to the Supreme
Court!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,051,855
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:51 PM EDT
If the chip supplier was American that was loosing the following just might
happen..

Components.. What components....we never got the paperwork from... No
they're all allocated until 2015, grey market is not supported...

The American way of doing business is to sue your suppliers/customers, so
how that goes down in an Asian culture and the rest of the world...

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )