Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Wants Another $707 Million From Samsung

Posted by timothy on from the as-do-we-all dept.

angry tapir writes "A California jury may have awarded Apple more than US$1 billion in damages in late August when it triumphed over Samsung in a hard-fought case over smartphone and tablet patents, but the iPhone maker is coming back for more: late last week it asked for additional damages of $707 million. The request includes an enhanced award of $535 million for willful violation of Apple's designs and patents, as well as about $172 million in supplemental damages based on the fact that the original damages were calculated on Samsung's sales through June 30."

3 of 316 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Squeezed for cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Just as religion was just about fleecing the masses while a few at the top remain stinking rich, I hope people will come to realise the same about capitalism.

    Of course, it will take a while. Even as capitalism is a cage with 10 starving dogs and enough food for perhaps half, those who have taken the food will continue convincing the remainder that it is fair this way. They will talk about "inalienable property rights" as the woowoo priests of the past tried to theologise "divine right" and "God's will". And the harder religion fails, the more people will complain that there has not been enough religion.

  2. Re:bad looser by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    "If a company has to make profit by law-suits there is something fundamentally wrong with it."

    This should not have been modded insightful; it should be modded offtopic.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  3. Re:Squeezed for cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Why is it "unfair" to be born into wealth? Is it "fair" to be born into poverty? Ooops, sorry kid. your parents were rich, that means you have to be poor.

    In order to be "unfair," in this case, someone must be deprived. Why should they (the deprived) be enriched at the expense of another? Why is that "fair"? Or is it just because some people are jealous and want things that don't belong to them, tacking on an arbitrary meaningless notion of "fairness."

    Seriously, grandiose ideologies carry a baggage of "fairness" that never quite measures to anything in reality.

    Fucking communists, holding back those with drive and ambition so that the fat and lazy can slither on.