[Azure]

Oh, and there is this too.

Apple was awarded damages for Samsung phones that were available on networks and carriers that didn't even CARRY the iPhone. How the frack is THAT supposed to work?

The first bit obviously stands for a multitude of reasons: not everyone who bought a Samsung device was actually open to an iPhone. While I don’t have numbers any numbers, I believe its reasonable to argue that a significant few bought a Galaxy phone because they wanted Android, not iOS. And the second bit of that statement, regarding Apple’s exclusivity deal with AT&T, seems particularly strong. Until January 8th, 2011, the only network you could get an iPhone on in the US was AT&T. Keeping this in mind, it’s difficult for Apple to claim that the devices Samsung sold to users on other networks hurt their own sales, since the role of the network and it’s coverage plays an important while deciding which device to purchase.

Apple was awarded $57 million for the Samsung Prevail (Boost Mobile) and a little over $53 million for the Samsung Mesmerize (US Cellular), with the iPhone still not available on either network. Additionally, the Samsung Transform cost Samsung about a million, though it was made available on Sprint almost a year before the network’s customers could use an iPhone without switching carriers. Apple was also awarded $3.5 million for the Replenish, which was available on Boost and on Sprint for 4-5 months before the iPhone. In total, we’re talking about $115 million in damages with these devices. I’ll try to update this list once I get my hands on with a complete breakdown of damages per device.

Update: The following device-by-device breakdown of damages was provided on Groklaw. I have cancelled out those devices I believe did not compete with iPhone by being available at a network that did not sell the iPhone ever or was released before the iPhone was announced for the network, thereby not competing with it at the time of sales. I kept the entire Samsung Galaxy Tab damages since a breakdown based on networks was not provided. The total provided by Groklaw is also different since he and a few of his readers believe that the courts have it wrong by a few ten thousands (on the lower side).

Here is the device breakdown with damages awarded to Apple for each phone. Phandroid crossed out the phones that were on networks where the iPhone wasn't even available.

Captivate . . . . . . . . . .80,840,162
Continuum . . . . . . . . . .16,399,117
Droid Charge. . . . . . . . .50,672,869
Epic 4G. . . . . . . . . . .130,180,894
Exhibit 4G . . . . . . . . . .1,081,820
Fascinate. . . . . . . . . .143,539,179
Galaxy Ace . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0
Galaxy Prevail. . . . . . . .57,867,383
Galaxy S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0
Galaxy S 4G . . . . . . . . .73,344,668
Galaxy S II (AT&T). . . . . .40,494,356
Galaxy S II (i9000). . . . . . . . . .0
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile). . . .83,791,708
Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch).100,326,988
Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) . . .32,273,558
Galaxy S (Showcase) . . . . .22,002,146
Galaxy Tab . . . . . . . . . .1,966,691
Galaxy Tab 10.1 WiFi . . . . . .833,076
Galaxy Tab 10.1 4G LTE . . . . . . . .0
Gem. . . . . . . . . . . . . .4,075,585
Indulge . . . . . . . . . . .16,011,184
Infuse 4G . . . . . . . . . .44,792,974
Intercept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0
Mesmerize . . . . . . . . . .53,123,612
Nexus S 4G . . . . . . . . . .1,828,297
Replenish. . . . . . . . . . .3,350,256
Transform. . . . . . . . . . . .953,060
Vibrant . . . . . . . . . . .89,673,957
TOTAL. . . . . . . . . . .1,049,423,540

Which updates the damages.

Total, removing the damages for the above devices……………..$251,873,686. That is $797,549,854 less than the initial damages.

The article also mentions that the jury instructions were quite clear.

The amount of those damages must be adequate to compensate the patent holder for the infringement. A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages award be less than a reasonable royalty.

There was no possible way that Apple should be compensated considering the iPhone wasn't even AVAILABLE to compete against the Samsung phones in question.

What a load of crock.

http://phandroid.com/2012/08/26/sams...or-its-appeal/