Apple content to wait until next year for Samsung to pay its billions in damages


Apple won a pretty big pay day when a jury decided in the company’s favor in a case against Samsung, but that pay day might not be coming any time soon. Samsung isn’t expected to pay out the billion dollar sum any time soon given an extended court schedule, and Apple is perfectly content with waiting until next year to collect. Apple likely won’t be able to demand payment from Samsung until at least two weeks after post-trial motions that will begin on December 6th.

The reason Apple isn’t all the miffed over playing the waiting game is their ability to withhold payment for certain Samsung components used in the production of their iPhone and iPad, which should balance out some of what the cupertino-based company is due.

[via BGR]

Kevin Krause
Pretty soon you'll know a lot about Kevin because his biography will actually be filled in!

comScore: Android’s market share grows in the US, but Samsung down a tick in July

Previous article

McAfee: Mobile malware up 700 percent since 2011, majority targets Android

Next article

You may also like


  1. Maybe Samsung should withhold the components. Just a thought.

    1. Just up the cost to Crapple 20%, that should cover the cost of the judgement.

      1. For an extra 20%, Apple could diversify their chip suppliers. Also, Apple pre-signs component deals so Sammy probably couldn’t raise prices for years.

        1. You mean diversify like with the displays, where LG produces faulty retina displays which have a burn-in effect, or Sharp who is late with their iPad display production ? Yeah, Apple can really diversify :D.

          1. Samsung isn’t the only DRAM and processor producer in the world. Part of the reason Apple goes with them is because Samsung can support Apple’s volume and they can get a discount for that volume. If Sammy raised prices 20%, they would give Apple enough incentive to find other options. I really doubt Sammy would do that though because they make a lot of money by selling Apple components.

      2. “sorry guys, but it’s Supply & Demand. Our customers demand our phones. So, the supply / manufacturing for your iphone parts if now limited…nothing personal, just business, you know.”

    2. Really? And lose all that money from apple??? You must be high!

      1. i dont know if its all business with samsung making money from apple…it could be beyond personal. and that samsung alone holds almost 40% of all smartphone sales worldwide could be another reason samsung could cut ties with apple.

    3. why would they do that apple pays them like 8-10 bill a year just on iPhone components. + since they make the components in the iPhone they pretty much know what the next iPhone will be like so they can top it, you know that whole keep your friends close but your enemy’s closer deal >.>

  2. apple might also be content because the case was never about money but gaining an illigal monopoly on the smartphone market

    1. This cannot be more true… Apple’s mission statement, is to take out every competition out there so can they monopolize the technology industry. This was even true back in the PC battles Between Microsoft and Apple. They are calling for their own destruction. I for one can’t wait to see Apple fall in the future (or near future).

    2. Nailed it!

    3. I think Apple isn’t content, and hasn’t the ability to withhold payment for Samsung components.
      What is wrongly reported as a fact here was just one of several hypotheses in the source.

  3. They can’t hold out. Samsung has the right to an appeal process. If a contract states Apple ordered so many parts from Samsung, they are contractually obligated to pay. What a silly article. Also, Samsung mobile is different from its manufacturing unit.

    1. You make it sound as if the legal system wasn’t tilted or biased in any way. :/

      1. Contracts are different. You’re legally obligated to follow the terms of a contract unless a court terminates the contract.

    2. I thought that too, but didn’t have the legal knowledge to back it up. Plus, BGR…’nuff said.

  4. FLORIAN MUELLER may know Patents but his knowledge of contract law is not something I would bet money on. You cannot simply withhold payments on components in a completely unrelated transaction due to the judgement of the patent infringement case. That would most definitely lead to a sure-win lawsuit against Apple by Samsung.

  5. The suggestion of withholding payments for iPhone/iPad parts is ridiculous Apple cant just say when not paying you because you owe us money, contract s are involved it just doesn’t work like that.

  6. If I was Samsung I would tell Apple one has nothing to do with the other and pay up for those parts on time.

  7. I thought Samsung plans to appeal? And that an appeal would halt all judgement’s? Am I not understanding something here?

  8. I cant stand how whenever there is a side by side shot of an Android device next to an Apple device the Android device has its app drawer open. Come on, Phandroid, you can do better than that and shouldn’t be inadvertently helping to affirm the notion that Android devices are iPhone knock offs.

    1. I don’t think that’s the app drawer. It looks like one of the Home screens filled with app shortcuts sans widgets.

      1. Afraid it is indeed the app drawer can see the “Apps” and “Widgets” tabs on the upper left corner Lol but I agree with you Carlos! Doesn’t help androids case if android renowned blog sites display the same misleading images that apple’s sleazy attorneys do! :/

    2. It’s bcuz Shamsung advertises their products with the app drawer open to purposely make it look like the iPhone knockoff that it is:

    3. They don’t look the same at all to me in this picture.

  9. Yes that is exactly right all that originality built by Samsung……



  11. Hey, Sammy, your drawer is open.

  12. I hope they never get their settlement and that Samsung wins an appeal. The argument that all the Samsung buyers would have bought an iPhone and got them mistaken was ridiculous. Half of the phones named in the suit were on carriers that didn’t even have the iPhone at the time. The whole trial reeked of bias.

    From the dismissing of prior art due to it running on a different processor to the jury accepting Apples prototypes and rejecting Samsungs. I wouldn’t even be surprised if someone was on the take. On one hand, Samsung did copy the icons, but that doesn’t make up for that valuation. Nobody mistook a galaxy S for an iphone. They knew exactly what they were buying.

  13. Sounds like a case brought up to legalise stealing actual products from Samsung, trading vague concepts for components for the iPhone

  14. sorry but that is a crazy comment, you can offset one with the other as a) the two parts of Samsung are different subsideries b) Contracts have payment clauses which both parts should adhere too, if Apple refuses payment then they can be charged interest and future deliveries delayed. The only reason Apple are in no rush for the $1bn would be that they have no need for the money.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More in News