Samsung/Apple Jury Reaches Verdict

Voynich · 10-09-2012, 20:44

Quote:

I'm not even reading that article because i know its bad journalism just from the photo of entirely red shoes. Having heard about it on the radio, there is an exemption about that shoe patent, which is where the entire shoe is red.

The article discusses that.

brangdon · 13-09-2012, 21:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

What is most interesting is that America has suddenly granted a patent to red soled shoes.

Presumably that's a "trade dress" thing. In the UK we would have a similar protection, but we wouldn't call it a patent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

The jury was directed to not discuss patent validity.

Um, I don't think they were. The jury instructions are in a PDF linked from Groklaw, and include:

FINAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 29 UTILITY PATENTS—INVALIDITY—BURDEN OF PROOF

I will now instruct you on the rules you must follow in deciding whether each party has proven that claims of the other side’s utility patents are invalid.

and is followed by several pages of explanation. For example, Instruction 31 talks about prior art. Patent validity is one of the things the jury was supposed to determine.

alanwarwic · 13-09-2012, 22:26

Woz's thoughts.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57...-patent-fight/

"Woz always prefers to speak his mind, rather than someone else's."

steviedab · 13-09-2012, 23:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

Woz's thoughts.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57...-patent-fight/

"Woz always prefers to speak his mind, rather than someone else's."

Woz should replace Tim Cock ooops Cook, apologies but Woz seems to be on top of my list right now and would drive Apple in the direction of less patent fights and more concerned on creating innovative products... If I was appointed as CEO of Apple I would pay Samsung back the $1m and sack the jacked up hyenas legal team.

niceguy1966 · 14-09-2012, 02:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by steviedab

Woz should replace Tim Cock ooops Cook, apologies but Woz seems to be on top of my list right now and would drive Apple in the direction of less patent fights and more concerned on creating innovative products... If I was appointed as CEO of Apple I would pay Samsung back the $1m and sack the jacked up hyenas legal team.

I think you mean $1B.

Everything Goes · 02-03-2013, 01:13

Judge Koh Slashes Apples payout by approx 45%

Last August, a jury awarded Apple $1.05bn in a patent infringement case against Samsung. On Friday, the US District Court judge who presided over that case slashed those damages by $450m.

Judge Lucy Koh found that the jury had improperly calculated the amount of damages awarded to Apple, and trimmed the total down to under $600m Apple had originally asked for $2.525bn in damages from Samsung.

Won't someone think of Apples poor shareholders

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03...sung_judgment/

Stiggles · 02-03-2013, 01:21

Oh well, i was right all that time ago saying it was completely wrong!

Good to see. Next what will happen is the apparent damages will be dropped completely i think.

Anika Hanson · 02-03-2013, 01:27

I knew this would happen. I think judge Koh got herself into a mess with the original verdict. This was probably all she could do to try and rectify her mistake.

Everything Goes · 02-03-2013, 01:46

Also on BBC website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21638825

alanwarwic · 02-03-2013, 09:18

All quite an irrelevant sideshow.

I can't quite see how any portion of a bundled together verdict can stand.
It will need a retrial on whatever left that has not been declared invalid.

edit - just read again. At least the BBC site makes less nonsense reading than elsewhere. And it does seem to be a retrial.

Roush · 02-03-2013, 10:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

All quite an irrelevant sideshow.

I can't quite see how any portion of a bundled together verdict can stand.
It will need a retrial on whatever left that has not been declared invalid.

edit - just read again. At least the BBC site makes less nonsense reading than elsewhere. And it does seem to be a retrial.

That's how jury trials work under US law. There won't be a full retrial just for that.

Samsung lost their bid for a retrial back in December.

There does seem to be a bit of misunderstanding over exactly what has happened. Basically, Judge Koh has made some minor alterations to the jury's infringement findings, but because the jury did not show their calculations for the damages awards the court cannot make the appropriate adjustments to the damages awards for those particular infringing Samsung products, so she has instead vacated the damages figures for those particular products.

The infringement rulings still stand, and a new jury will now decide on new damages awards for those particular infringements, in addition to the ~$600m of the original awards that has been affirmed.

Stiggles · 02-03-2013, 17:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roush

That's how jury trials work under US law. There won't be a full retrial just for that.

Samsung lost their bid for a retrial back in December.

There does seem to be a bit of misunderstanding over exactly what has happened. Basically, Judge Koh has made some minor alterations to the jury's infringement findings, but because the jury did not show their calculations for the damages awards the court cannot make the appropriate adjustments to the damages awards for those particular infringing Samsung products, so she has instead vacated the damages figures for those particular products.

The infringement rulings still stand, and a new jury will now decide on new damages awards for those particular infringements, in addition to the ~$600m of the original awards that has been affirmed.

No misunderstanding at all. The jury wayyy over estimated, sided with apple (which was no surprise considering the place it was held, the jury foreman having apple interests..) based on pretty much shaky evidence or actually none at all and apple won. It was a farce from start to finish, Thankfully now its being sorted out.

Also, one of the patents apple is clinging on to, is in the process of being killed, so the award will only continue to go down. The new trial coming soon to decide the new damages will kill the entire lawsuit i reckon.

Roush · 02-03-2013, 17:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiggles

The new trial coming soon to decide the new damages will kill the entire lawsuit i reckon.

It won't. That's the point I was making. The new jury will only reexamine the damages that were vacated, and none of the infringement findings will be reexamined.

The remaining $598,908,892 of the original jury's damages stands, and the new jury will not reexamine that. Apple is now legally entitled to seek payment of this sum from Samsung.

It's also entirely possible that a new jury could award higher damages than the first one.

Stiggles · 02-03-2013, 17:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roush

It won't. That's the point I was making. The new jury will only reexamine the damages that were vacated, and none of the infringement findings will be reexamined.

The remaining $598,908,892 of the original jury's damages stands, and the new jury will not reexamine that. Apple is now legally entitled to seek payment of this sum from Samsung.

It's also entirely possible that a new jury could award higher damages than the first one.

The patent apple is using (something about prior art) is in the process of being killed. If that does happen the damages will drop as thats what a huge portion is based on.

brangdon · 03-03-2013, 13:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiggles

No misunderstanding at all.

Yes, misunderstanding. The title is wrong. The damages haven't been slashed by $450m. That portion has been scheduled to be recalculated. The new damages may be higher or lower; they won't be zero, so the total won't have been reduced by $450m. It's bad reporting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiggles

The patent apple is using (something about prior art) is in the process of being killed. If that does happen the damages will drop as thats what a huge portion is based on.

That's a separate issue, and not what the headline is about.

Stiggles · 03-03-2013, 22:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by brangdon

Yes, misunderstanding. The title is wrong. The damages haven't been slashed by $450m. That portion has been scheduled to be recalculated. The new damages may be higher or lower; they won't be zero, so the total won't have been reduced by $450m. It's bad reporting.

So every outlet has reported it wrongly. If that's the case, i wont take your word for it naturally as your no expert in this. So can you point me to the correct report?

Quote:

That's a separate issue, and not what the headline is about.

Its not separate. If and when the patent is dropped the damages will once again fall.

paulbrock · 03-03-2013, 23:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiggles

So every outlet has reported it wrongly. If that's the case, i wont take your word for it naturally as your no expert in this. So can you point me to the correct report?

That is how the BBC describes it, though I agree that a lot of other articles put a different angle on it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21638825

Quote:

The $450.5m ordered to be removed from the payout will be reassessed, and could be increased or lowered.

Stiggles · 03-03-2013, 23:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulbrock

That is how the BBC describes it, though I agree that a lot of other articles put a different angle on it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21638825

I thank you

brangdon · 04-03-2013, 13:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiggles

So every outlet has reported it wrongly. If that's the case, i wont take your word for it naturally as your no expert in this. So can you point me to the correct report?

If you follow The Register link, the article cites as its source The San Jose Mercury News. That mentions that the judge ordered a new trial on the damages, and says, "But the new trial on the damages could restore some of the $450 million Apple lost in Friday's ruling." Even The Register mentions a new trial; it just fails to make it plain what the trial is for.

Paulbrock has already got the information from the BBC link. So the information was available from both links posted here, if you took the trouble to look.

Another good source is Groklaw, because it often cites the original court documents.

munta · 07-03-2013, 21:41

Samsung loses uk patent case over apples use of 3G

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21704946

Everything Goes · 18-05-2015, 16:22

Apples damages cut to $548 Million

The long running legal dispute has seen Apple's damages cut by $382 Million and some of the previous rulings struck out.

Quote:

A Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier today that while Samsung did indeed violate Apple's design patents, it didn't do the with same Apple's trade dress — broader elements of design and aesthetic that dictate the presentation of Apple's gadgets. With that bombshell dropped, the court has asked for an update on the damages to be awarded sans the trade dress stuff, which should work out to a roughly $382 million discount for Samsung.

http://www.engadget.com/2015/05/18/a...ally-reversed/

kidspud · 18-05-2015, 19:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Everything Goes

Apples damages cut to $548 Million

The long running legal dispute has seen Apple's damages cut by $382 Million and some of the previous rulings struck out.

http://www.engadget.com/2015/05/18/a...ally-reversed/

Doesn't that mean the amount it was reports to be cut by has now gone up again

Everything Goes · 18-05-2015, 22:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by kidspud

Doesn't that mean the amount it was reports to be cut by has now gone up again

This is the best explanation I can find on this long running case:

Quote:

The current legal fight between Samsung and Apple has been going on since 2011, when Apple alleged that several Samsung phones infringed on design and utility patents for its iPhone. In 2012, a court found that Samsung had indeed infringed on Apple's patents for "bounce-back" scrolling, multitouch gestures, and tap-to-zoom options on iOS. It also found that Samsung's phones had infringed on both officially registered and unregistered iPhone trade dress. Apple had requested $2.5 billion in damages, and it ended up getting slightly over $1 billion.

Since then, Samsung and Apple have both been trying to tilt the ruling and the damages in their favor. Apple tried and failed to get a sales ban on the infringing phones and tablets (all of which have now been obsolete for several years), and it requested an additional $707 million from Samsung. It got neither of these; in fact, its original damages were recalculated and slightly cut back. Now that the earlier decision has been struck down, lower courts will have to calculate a new damages number. Samsung, however, has also had its share of disappointment. It lost a second patent battle to Apple in 2014, for the smaller amount of around $120 million.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/18/86...ade-dress-2015

IvanIV · 19-05-2015, 05:23

It would interest me how much the litigation itself costs them. Did anybody make an estimate?

kidspud · 19-05-2015, 09:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by IvanIV

It would interest me how much the litigation itself costs them. Did anybody make an estimate?

All these companies employ lawyers full time, so most of it is sunk costs.

10-09-2012, 20:44	#1051
Voynich Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Western Scotland Posts: 13,586	Quote: Originally Posted by whoever,hey I'm not even reading that article because i know its bad journalism just from the photo of entirely red shoes. Having heard about it on the radio, there is an exemption about that shoe patent, which is where the entire shoe is red. The article discusses that.

13-09-2012, 21:56	#1052
brangdon Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Nottingham, UK Posts: 11,885	Quote: Originally Posted by alanwarwic What is most interesting is that America has suddenly granted a patent to red soled shoes. Presumably that's a "trade dress" thing. In the UK we would have a similar protection, but we wouldn't call it a patent. Quote: Originally Posted by alanwarwic The jury was directed to not discuss patent validity. Um, I don't think they were. The jury instructions are in a PDF linked from Groklaw, and include: FINAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 29 UTILITY PATENTS—INVALIDITY—BURDEN OF PROOF I will now instruct you on the rules you must follow in deciding whether each party has proven that claims of the other side’s utility patents are invalid. and is followed by several pages of explanation. For example, Instruction 31 talks about prior art. Patent validity is one of the things the jury was supposed to determine.

13-09-2012, 22:26	#1053
alanwarwic Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: the wild world web Posts: 28,132	Woz's thoughts. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57...-patent-fight/ "Woz always prefers to speak his mind, rather than someone else's."

13-09-2012, 23:18	#1054
steviedab Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: London Posts: 292	Quote: Originally Posted by alanwarwic Woz's thoughts. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57...-patent-fight/ "Woz always prefers to speak his mind, rather than someone else's." Woz should replace Tim Cock ooops Cook, apologies but Woz seems to be on top of my list right now and would drive Apple in the direction of less patent fights and more concerned on creating innovative products... If I was appointed as CEO of Apple I would pay Samsung back the $1m and sack the jacked up hyenas legal team.

14-09-2012, 02:10	#1055
niceguy1966 Forum Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 12,488	Quote: Originally Posted by steviedab Woz should replace Tim Cock ooops Cook, apologies but Woz seems to be on top of my list right now and would drive Apple in the direction of less patent fights and more concerned on creating innovative products... If I was appointed as CEO of Apple I would pay Samsung back the $1m and sack the jacked up hyenas legal team. I think you mean $1B.

02-03-2013, 01:13	#1056
Everything Goes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: In the future.... Posts: 11,259	Judge Koh Slashes Apples payout by approx 45% Last August, a jury awarded Apple $1.05bn in a patent infringement case against Samsung. On Friday, the US District Court judge who presided over that case slashed those damages by $450m. Judge Lucy Koh found that the jury had improperly calculated the amount of damages awarded to Apple, and trimmed the total down to under $600m Apple had originally asked for $2.525bn in damages from Samsung. Won't someone think of Apples poor shareholders http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03...sung_judgment/

02-03-2013, 01:21	#1057
Stiggles Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Dundee, Scotland Posts: 9,293	Oh well, i was right all that time ago saying it was completely wrong! Good to see. Next what will happen is the apparent damages will be dropped completely i think.

02-03-2013, 01:27	#1058
Anika Hanson Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: UK Posts: 14,219	I knew this would happen. I think judge Koh got herself into a mess with the original verdict. This was probably all she could do to try and rectify her mistake.

02-03-2013, 01:46	#1059
Everything Goes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: In the future.... Posts: 11,259	Also on BBC website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21638825

02-03-2013, 09:18	#1060
alanwarwic Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: the wild world web Posts: 28,132	All quite an irrelevant sideshow. I can't quite see how any portion of a bundled together verdict can stand. It will need a retrial on whatever left that has not been declared invalid. edit - just read again. At least the BBC site makes less nonsense reading than elsewhere. And it does seem to be a retrial.

02-03-2013, 10:04	#1061
Roush Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Hertfordshire Posts: 2,938	Quote: Originally Posted by alanwarwic All quite an irrelevant sideshow. I can't quite see how any portion of a bundled together verdict can stand. It will need a retrial on whatever left that has not been declared invalid. edit - just read again. At least the BBC site makes less nonsense reading than elsewhere. And it does seem to be a retrial. That's how jury trials work under US law. There won't be a full retrial just for that. Samsung lost their bid for a retrial back in December. There does seem to be a bit of misunderstanding over exactly what has happened. Basically, Judge Koh has made some minor alterations to the jury's infringement findings, but because the jury did not show their calculations for the damages awards the court cannot make the appropriate adjustments to the damages awards for those particular infringing Samsung products, so she has instead vacated the damages figures for those particular products. The infringement rulings still stand, and a new jury will now decide on new damages awards for those particular infringements, in addition to the ~$600m of the original awards that has been affirmed.

02-03-2013, 17:22	#1062
Stiggles Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Dundee, Scotland Posts: 9,293	Quote: Originally Posted by Roush That's how jury trials work under US law. There won't be a full retrial just for that. Samsung lost their bid for a retrial back in December. There does seem to be a bit of misunderstanding over exactly what has happened. Basically, Judge Koh has made some minor alterations to the jury's infringement findings, but because the jury did not show their calculations for the damages awards the court cannot make the appropriate adjustments to the damages awards for those particular infringing Samsung products, so she has instead vacated the damages figures for those particular products. The infringement rulings still stand, and a new jury will now decide on new damages awards for those particular infringements, in addition to the ~$600m of the original awards that has been affirmed. No misunderstanding at all. The jury wayyy over estimated, sided with apple (which was no surprise considering the place it was held, the jury foreman having apple interests..) based on pretty much shaky evidence or actually none at all and apple won. It was a farce from start to finish, Thankfully now its being sorted out. Also, one of the patents apple is clinging on to, is in the process of being killed, so the award will only continue to go down. The new trial coming soon to decide the new damages will kill the entire lawsuit i reckon.

02-03-2013, 17:27	#1063
Roush Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Hertfordshire Posts: 2,938	Quote: Originally Posted by Stiggles The new trial coming soon to decide the new damages will kill the entire lawsuit i reckon. It won't. That's the point I was making. The new jury will only reexamine the damages that were vacated, and none of the infringement findings will be reexamined. The remaining $598,908,892 of the original jury's damages stands, and the new jury will not reexamine that. Apple is now legally entitled to seek payment of this sum from Samsung. It's also entirely possible that a new jury could award higher damages than the first one.

02-03-2013, 17:58	#1064
Stiggles Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Dundee, Scotland Posts: 9,293	Quote: Originally Posted by Roush It won't. That's the point I was making. The new jury will only reexamine the damages that were vacated, and none of the infringement findings will be reexamined. The remaining $598,908,892 of the original jury's damages stands, and the new jury will not reexamine that. Apple is now legally entitled to seek payment of this sum from Samsung. It's also entirely possible that a new jury could award higher damages than the first one. The patent apple is using (something about prior art) is in the process of being killed. If that does happen the damages will drop as thats what a huge portion is based on.

03-03-2013, 13:15	#1065
brangdon Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Nottingham, UK Posts: 11,885	Quote: Originally Posted by Stiggles No misunderstanding at all. Yes, misunderstanding. The title is wrong. The damages haven't been slashed by $450m. That portion has been scheduled to be recalculated. The new damages may be higher or lower; they won't be zero, so the total won't have been reduced by $450m. It's bad reporting. Quote: Originally Posted by Stiggles The patent apple is using (something about prior art) is in the process of being killed. If that does happen the damages will drop as thats what a huge portion is based on. That's a separate issue, and not what the headline is about.

03-03-2013, 22:08	#1066
Stiggles Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Dundee, Scotland Posts: 9,293	Quote: Originally Posted by brangdon Yes, misunderstanding. The title is wrong. The damages haven't been slashed by $450m. That portion has been scheduled to be recalculated. The new damages may be higher or lower; they won't be zero, so the total won't have been reduced by $450m. It's bad reporting. So every outlet has reported it wrongly. If that's the case, i wont take your word for it naturally as your no expert in this. So can you point me to the correct report? Quote: That's a separate issue, and not what the headline is about. Its not separate. If and when the patent is dropped the damages will once again fall.

03-03-2013, 23:10	#1067
paulbrock Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Wapping, London Posts: 16,222	Quote: Originally Posted by Stiggles So every outlet has reported it wrongly. If that's the case, i wont take your word for it naturally as your no expert in this. So can you point me to the correct report? That is how the BBC describes it, though I agree that a lot of other articles put a different angle on it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21638825 Quote: The $450.5m ordered to be removed from the payout will be reassessed, and could be increased or lowered.

03-03-2013, 23:24	#1068
Stiggles Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Dundee, Scotland Posts: 9,293	Quote: Originally Posted by paulbrock That is how the BBC describes it, though I agree that a lot of other articles put a different angle on it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21638825 I thank you

04-03-2013, 13:42	#1069
brangdon Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Nottingham, UK Posts: 11,885	Quote: Originally Posted by Stiggles So every outlet has reported it wrongly. If that's the case, i wont take your word for it naturally as your no expert in this. So can you point me to the correct report? If you follow The Register link, the article cites as its source The San Jose Mercury News. That mentions that the judge ordered a new trial on the damages, and says, "But the new trial on the damages could restore some of the $450 million Apple lost in Friday's ruling." Even The Register mentions a new trial; it just fails to make it plain what the trial is for. Paulbrock has already got the information from the BBC link. So the information was available from both links posted here, if you took the trouble to look. Another good source is Groklaw, because it often cites the original court documents.

07-03-2013, 21:41	#1070
munta Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: The United Kingdom Posts: 15,551	Samsung loses uk patent case over apples use of 3G http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21704946

18-05-2015, 16:22	#1071
Everything Goes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: In the future.... Posts: 11,259	Apples damages cut to $548 Million The long running legal dispute has seen Apple's damages cut by $382 Million and some of the previous rulings struck out. Quote: A Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier today that while Samsung did indeed violate Apple's design patents, it didn't do the with same Apple's trade dress — broader elements of design and aesthetic that dictate the presentation of Apple's gadgets. With that bombshell dropped, the court has asked for an update on the damages to be awarded sans the trade dress stuff, which should work out to a roughly $382 million discount for Samsung. http://www.engadget.com/2015/05/18/a...ally-reversed/

18-05-2015, 19:33	#1072
kidspud Forum Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 11,501	Quote: Originally Posted by Everything Goes Apples damages cut to $548 Million The long running legal dispute has seen Apple's damages cut by $382 Million and some of the previous rulings struck out. http://www.engadget.com/2015/05/18/a...ally-reversed/ Doesn't that mean the amount it was reports to be cut by has now gone up again

DS Forums

Samsung/Apple Jury Reaches Verdict

18-05-2015, 22:33	#1073
Everything Goes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: In the future.... Posts: 11,259	Quote: Originally Posted by kidspud Doesn't that mean the amount it was reports to be cut by has now gone up again This is the best explanation I can find on this long running case: Quote: The current legal fight between Samsung and Apple has been going on since 2011, when Apple alleged that several Samsung phones infringed on design and utility patents for its iPhone. In 2012, a court found that Samsung had indeed infringed on Apple's patents for "bounce-back" scrolling, multitouch gestures, and tap-to-zoom options on iOS. It also found that Samsung's phones had infringed on both officially registered and unregistered iPhone trade dress. Apple had requested $2.5 billion in damages, and it ended up getting slightly over $1 billion. Since then, Samsung and Apple have both been trying to tilt the ruling and the damages in their favor. Apple tried and failed to get a sales ban on the infringing phones and tablets (all of which have now been obsolete for several years), and it requested an additional $707 million from Samsung. It got neither of these; in fact, its original damages were recalculated and slightly cut back. Now that the earlier decision has been struck down, lower courts will have to calculate a new damages number. Samsung, however, has also had its share of disappointment. It lost a second patent battle to Apple in 2014, for the smaller amount of around $120 million. http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/18/86...ade-dress-2015

19-05-2015, 05:23	#1074
IvanIV Forum Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 25,199	It would interest me how much the litigation itself costs them. Did anybody make an estimate?

19-05-2015, 09:27	#1075
kidspud Forum Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 11,501	Quote: Originally Posted by IvanIV It would interest me how much the litigation itself costs them. Did anybody make an estimate? All these companies employ lawyers full time, so most of it is sunk costs.