[NewsPoster]

The high-stakes Apple versus Samsung court battle taking place in the Northern District of California has seen highly confidential sales figures (pdf) for the US market released. Although Apple, unlike Samsung, has always reported actual units sold on to end-users, these have only ever been global sales figures that have never been broken down by region. Samsung has tended to avoid revealing actual sales figures in favor of units shipped with the new court documents revealing the sometimes large discrepancy between shipments against actual units sold on to end-users.

From the release of the iPhone in 2007 though to the second quarter of this year, Apple has sold 85 million iPhones in the US alone, which amounted to revenue totaling some $50 billion. It also sold 46 million iPod touch devices yielding $10.3 billion. The iPad did not launch until 2010 with Apple having sold over 34 million iPads to US consumers alone in just over two years, which generated $19 billion. Although the US sales reflect a large portion of its overall sales, Apple has been adding more and more countries to its list of world wide markets, further driving its sales. The sales figures for Samsung's devices only represent those models which Apple claims have infringed on its IP, totaling 21 million units sold over the period June 2010 to June 2012. Following the launch of the original Galaxy Tab in late 2010, Samsung only sold 262,000 units in the US, although it claimed it to have shipped over 2 million. Galaxy Tab and Tab 10.1 sales totaled 1.4 million for the period worth $644 million. Some of the other notable sales figures show that Samsung sold 1.675 million units of its Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, totaling $764 million in sales. The original Epic 4G sold 1.9 million units, although the largest seller was the Galaxy Prevail which notched up 2.25 sales with Galaxy S II variants all told selling total of 4.1 million units. If Samsung is found guilty of infringing Apple's IP, damages would be broken down into a percentage for each device sold in the US, with preliminary estimates suggesting that it could cost the South Korean giant over $2 billion. However, if even just one juror holds out against siding with Apple, it could still be denied any compensation. The San Jose trial is now into its second week and is not expected to conclude until the end of August. [via AllThingsD]

[Wingsy]

"However, if even just one juror holds out against siding with Apple, it could still be denied any compensation."

I thought that was true only in criminal cases. For civil cases, don't you just need a simply majority?

Originally Posted by Wingsy 

"However, if even just one juror holds out against siding with Apple, it could still be denied any compensation."
I thought that was true only in criminal cases. For civil cases, don't you just need a simply majority?

Doesn't matter. This isn't about the money.

[malax]

Originally Posted by Wingsy 

"However, if even just one juror holds out against siding with Apple, it could still be denied any compensation."
I thought that was true only in criminal cases. For civil cases, don't you just need a simply majority?

Like many things in our federal system, "it depends." According to this summary ( http://www.ajs.org/jc/juries/jc_decision_overview.asp ):

Civil cases in federal court

The Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial does not require either a twelve-person jury or a unanimous verdict. Federal statutes provide for a six-person unanimous verdict in most civil cases.

Civil cases in state court

Size and unanimity requirements in civil cases vary considerably under state laws. Less than half the states require twelve-person juries, and about half the states allow for non-unanimous verdicts.

[malax]

Originally Posted by hayesk 

Doesn't matter. This isn't about the money.

Right. Apple "winning" and getting no compensation would be just fine at 1 Infinite Loop?

[bnowrooz]

If you go to Korea, or China for that matter, and go shopping, you will notice that nearly all successful products are emulated by a large number of similar rivals. That's just how it's done. The leader intros a product and the fast followers work quickly to emulate then go one better. Samsung is only doing it's corporate duty in fighting the lawsuits presented. There will be a domestic product for each successful foreign product.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by malax 

Originally Posted by hayesk 

Doesn't matter. This isn't about the money.

Right. Apple "winning" and getting no compensation would be just fine at 1 Infinite Loop?

Not ideal, but just fine, correct.

Because if they win, they have legal precedent to stop others from copying their designs.
THAT is what they're after.

Apple has made 50 billion on the iPhone. A couple billion more in damages is no joke, certainly (though only a fraction of that would reach them due to the ****ed-up tort system in the US).

But in the long run, that's nothing compared to being, quite literally, inimitable, and having established right to slam any competitor deemed to be copping a design with sales injunctions.

[SockRolid]

@ spheric harlot - Exactly. Just because Samsung only sold 37 thousand Galaxy Tabs in total last quarter doesn't make copying OK. If a less-feeble competitor were allowed to copy Apple, there could be real damage. A pro-Apple ruling would protect Apple against that by establishing legal precedent.

This isn't really about the $2.5 billion in damages. That's just lunch money. This is about dominance of consumer electronics (and possibly many other markets) through much of the rest of the 21st century.