Apple ordered to open its books on iPhone, iPad profits The judge in the ongoing Apple versus Samsung patent trial has ruled that Cupertino must disclose financial information on the profitability of its iPad and iPhone lines so that proper damages can be assessed. Apple won the initial stage of its trial against Samsung over the Korean manufacturer's infringement of Cupertino's …
On a serious note, this could be important. Apple will need to prove direct damage to their bottom line by the introduction of these "offending" Samsung products.
And even worse, they'd need to prove that it's the design from the violated patent that cause Samsung to gain market share at the expense of Apple.
If the judge has any sense, he'll tell Apple to take a hike with their multi-bn claim, and peg it at $1.
They show iTunes profits (which include the app store) separately from the hardware sales of iPhone and iPad. They reported just under $2 billion in revenue (not profit) in Q2 2012, for example, but didn't break that out between songs and apps. The profits on the apps can't be more than a few percent of what they make on the hardware.
Given how few products Apple has, it hasn't been hard for analysts to make some very educated guesses about the profit margins on both iPhone and iPad given that the total revenue and unit sales for each are reported quarterly, and as the mix changes the effect of iPhone's higher and iPad's lower margins move Apple's overall gross margin. There wouldn't be anything in these numbers that would surprise or inform Wall Street analysts who've done the math, or those who have read articles detailing their findings.
Why do I get the sense that the judge is trying to make Apple see that ending this nonsense is going to be better than proceeding?
I may like some Apple gear, but I sure as hell do not like what the company is doing in court. It serves no useful purpose. Would the outcome of this really influence how people buy?
All you get is grey import - the way this case is progressing shows IMHO very clearly that the argument is balanced - it's not black and white. This means that the judge is more likely to look at the greater good as part of the judgement, and I think that really doesn't do Apple any favours.
As I have argued elsewhere, in a way, an Apple product is like fashion - and they don't have copyright protection at all, only trademarks are covered.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
She screws both parties by limiting the evidence; she knocks Samsung's exhibits because they are too late.
Then she shafts Apple by delaying the Apple injunction to block Samsung sales until December - likely reducing iThingie sales.
Now she wants Apple to drop their pants and tell all their Fanbois just how much money they make?
Painful medicine.
Whatever the Apple does I hope it supplements the request with other details about product development costs, research costs and losses due to devices failing to appeal to the public.
Idea: new (commercial) stuff in IT is a gamble, Some win, some lose.
Some win in a mega-big way, Some lose in a mega-big way (ask the judge to look at Nokia's real life example of poor decision making/taking/implementing)
Where all that dodgy offshore accounting and showing a loss in some higher tax revenus countries will bite them in the arse
How much profit did you make?
lost 1.2 million well you get nothing back then because last year you lost more than 1.7 so the infringing product actually aided your company, you owe samsung a drink
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
