Apple Vs. Samsung Damages Broken Down
By Sean P. Aune | 7
As the dust settles around the Apple Vs. Samsung case, and the latter prepares to fight the ruling, its time to get down to the nitty gritty of what really happened.
The Apple Vs. Samsung ruling (PDF link) has been released, and there is a lot to process in there, but one of the most interesting things is the table showing how much each Samsung contributed to the more than $1 billion ruling.
| Captivate (JX 1011) | $80,840,162 |
| Continuum (JX 1016) | $16,399,117 |
| Droid Charge (JX 1025) | $50,672,869 |
| Epic 4G (JX1012) | $130,180,896 |
| Exhibit 4G (JX 1028) | $1,081,820 |
| Fascinate (JX 1013) | $143,539,179 |
| Galaxy Ace (JX 1030) | $0 |
| Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022) | $57,867,383 |
| Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007) | $0 |
| Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019) | $73,344,668 |
| Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031) | $40,496,358 |
| Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032) | $0 |
| Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033) | $83,791,708 |
| Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 1034) | $100,326,988 |
| Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX 1035) | $32,273,558 |
| Galaxy S Showcase (i500) (JX 1017) | $22,002,146 |
| Galaxy Tab (JX 1036) | $1,966,691 |
| Galaxy Tav 10.1 (WiFi) (JX 1037) | $0 |
| Galaxy Tab 10.1 (4G LTE) (JX 1038) | $0 |
| Gem (JX 1020) | $4,075,585 |
| Indulge (JX 1026) | $16,011,184 |
| Infuse 4G (JX 1027) | $44,792,974 |
| Intercept (JX 1009) | $0 |
| Mesmerize (JX 1015) | $53,123,612 |
| Nexus S 4G (JX 1023) | $1,828,297 |
| Replenish (JX1024) | $3,350,256 |
| Transform (JX 1014) | $953,060 |
| Vibrant (JX 1010) | $89,673,957 |
As it stands, Apple is looking to ask Judge Lucy Koh to triple the damages as the jury found Samsung had been willful in its infringement, while the Korean manufacturer is looking to have the ruling thrown out on various grounds. Barring it being overturned by Koh, the company has vowed to appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.
Both companies are due back in Koh’s courtroom on Sept. 20 to beging the process of injunctions against the devices found to have infringed on Apple’s patents.
[via Groklaw]
