Samsung loses 'important' patent decision to Apple in Netherlands

2

Comments

  • mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 6,751member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post


    Just realised something



    Google is pushing its fibre business pretty heavy with it already rolling out in test markets in the US.



    It is supposedly even faster than anything else out on the market now.



    The question is.....with the developments we see now, will it be possible that Google rolls out their fibre in a wider area to more customers while at the same time NOT submit any patents on it as FRAND, keeping the whole thing proprietary?



    In other words, is Google planning to become a service provider that plays by its own rules?



    Maybe Apple should start looking into the service side as well cause you wouldn't want a situation like that to develop. Especially with things like Apple TV on the way. A cheap speedy connection from Google that is totally proprietary may end up gaining traction in the market and cause problems for competitors.



    Do you know anything about large scale backbone networks? The king of all that is Alcatel-Lucent. Ma Bell's Lucent Labs is the king of all patents in this area. Google isn't going to threaten Verizon or anyone for fiber, never mind the fact they don't have right-of-way due to Federal Laws.
  • spacekidspacekid Posts: 30member
    If Apple is able to recover damages from these lawsuits, then pretty soon, Apple may own Samsung, Motorola and perhaps a good chunk of Google.
  • mightymikemightymike Posts: 49member
    Samsux is toast, Trollarola will be left to twist in the wind. Samsux can cut a deal now with Apple for what ever they can get or turn into dead meat when Apple's big screen decimates their TV business, which represents their main source of income. Google will dump Trollarola as soon as Samsux exhausts its leagal options (soon).
  • juandljuandl Posts: 226member
    Is there any possible way for Apple to go thru the skies for coverage in the near future?

    Lightsquare seemed to have a good idea. But I don't think they had the Smarts to get it done.



    You would think Apple has the funds to launch as many satelites needed.
  • christophbchristophb Posts: 1,351member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by juandl View Post


    Is there any possible way for Apple to go thru the skies for coverage in the near future?

    Lightsquare seemed to have a good idea. But I don't think they had the Smarts to get it done.



    You would think Apple has the funds to launch as many satelites needed.



    22,000mi up, down, up, down for every packet. Screw that.
  • sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,433member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    [...] "So far, Samsung has not been able to prevail with any of its offensive claims against Apple anywhere on this planet," he explained. "Today's ruling is only the latest in a series of losses." [...]



    Oh well, there's always Mars. Right?



    But seriously, maybe Samsung's legal department knew all along that they had no chance of winning. Maybe Samsung's executives told them to sue Apple anyway. Just to make it look like they were doing something. To keep their stock value up.



    By putting up the appearance of "fighting the good fight," Samsung just might be trying to calm down panicky investors. Wouldn't look good for Samsung to get smacked down by Apple in the fastest-growing segment of their business, mobile. Would it?
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post


    Oh well, there's always Mars. Right?



    But seriously, maybe Samsung's legal department knew all along that they had no chance of winning. Maybe Samsung's executives told them to sue Apple anyway. Just to make it look like they were doing something. To keep their stock value up.



    By putting up the appearance of "fighting the good fight," Samsung just might be trying to calm down panicky investors. Wouldn't look good for Samsung to get smacked down by Apple in the fastest-growing segment of their business, mobile. Would it?



    Or maybe Samsung just needs new legal representatives. Preferably ones who can tell the difference between an iPad and a Tab.
  • galbigalbi Posts: 968member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mightymike View Post


    Samsux is toast, Trollarola will be left to twist in the wind. Samsux can cut a deal now with Apple for what ever they can get or turn into dead meat when Apple's big screen decimates their TV business, which represents their main source of income. Google will dump Trollarola as soon as Samsux exhausts its leagal options (soon).



    Revenue source for Samsung is pretty diversified.



    TV's isnt their "main source" of income.



    Perhaps a little research would do wonders for ya.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by brutus009 View Post


    Wow... so Samsung hasn't won a single lawsuit against Apple anywhere? Kinda weird. What I don't understand is how my Android friend so vehemently states that Apple is this evil litigation giant just bullying everyone around. It sounds like Apple has the right of it...



    Your premise is "Samsung hasn't won".



    Your conclusion is "Apple is not evil".



    But that doesn't follow. The argument is not cogent.
  • applebeerapplebeer Posts: 1member
    This wouldn't make much sense financially, but could Samsung refuse Apple's business?
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleBeer View Post


    This wouldn't make much sense financially, but could Samsung refuse Apple's business?



    Sure. There is nothing forcing Samsung to have any customers at all but customers are how you make money so it behooves them to do so.



    If Samsung weren't supplying any of the displays for the G3 iPad Apple would have other vendors pick up the slack. Perhaps not quickly or with the same cost per display, but the slack would be picked up so all Samsung would do is end up hurting themselves.
  • anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 16,563member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleBeer View Post


    This wouldn't make much sense financially, but could Samsung refuse Apple's business?



    Yes, theoretically they could.



    But even the Korean stock market will punish them like they have not been, before. Their global investors will have fled by then.
  • tunetune Posts: 91member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Or maybe Samsung just needs new legal representatives. Preferably ones who can tell the difference between an iPad and a Tab.



    Or maybe they should be like Apple and just photoshop the difference.
  • fake_william_shatnerfake_william_shatner Posts: 660member
    Well, the court had BETTER side with Apple on this FRAND issue -- otherwise, companies who benefit from licensed standards could come back after the fact and charge thousands of dollars more than the phone for all the tiny moving parts that make it work as a device.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Well, the estimate to serve all the people in the USA with fiber is about $10 trillion. As far as I know, Google doesn't have that.



    That sounds like a made up fantasy number. That's $30,000 for every single person in the country or over $100,000 for every household - which just doesn't seem even close to reasonable. Even if accurate, that's a meaningless number. First, there's no reason to have every single person in the USA on fiber. Second, much of the fiber infrastructure is already in place and not currently being used.



    As with everything else, Fiber will first be used for the Internet backbone (actually, this is already largely in place). Then it will start being used for high-density locations (companies, apartments, etc). Then individual households in large cities. It's going to be years before fiber makes it to every remote location (there are plenty of places that don't even have cable yet). It's silly to suggest that it's of no use until every person in the country has it.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post


    Well, the court had BETTER side with Apple on this FRAND issue -- otherwise, companies who benefit from licensed standards could come back after the fact and charge thousands of dollars more than the phone for all the tiny moving parts that make it work as a device.



    Yep. This one had to go that way.



    Now, it's possible that they could have slightly modified the standards by changing the interpretation of how far the licensee needed to go to accept FRAND terms, but to completely throw it out is absurd.



    A very big win for Apple is the ruling that affirms that FRAND means a lifetime license and the licensor can't simply terminate the license (as Motorola tried to do with Qualcomm).
  • fake_william_shatnerfake_william_shatner Posts: 660member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Your premise is "Samsung hasn't won".



    Your conclusion is "Apple is not evil".



    But that doesn't follow. The argument is not cogent.







    What it MEANS is that Samsung needs to examine it's practices, and it has Manufacturing facilities that directly conflict with the Marketing of its own products. It gets privileged information and technology from customers.



    In response to infringing on Apple's copyrights, they've gone with a poorly thought out legal strategy on suing Apple based on their technology patents -- in ways that would make their technology standards anathema to all their OTHER customers.



    Samsung losing and Apple winning so many cases, isn't REALLY about good or evil -- it's that there is a big conflict of interest inherent in Samsung's widely focused corporation, and they are listening to the wrong legal advice.



    Apple, after having been stung and lost so much IP in the past, has invested heavily in a very top notch legal team. They also have the benefit of relying on either standards or their own creative talents -- so they are less likely to run afoul of the courts. Because they are in such a hugely litigious realm of software, technology and creative media, however, Lawsuits are just going to be part of their business model.



    >> It's ALSO not going to hurt Apple, that messing with them in court is a very risky proposition.
  • fake_william_shatnerfake_william_shatner Posts: 660member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Yep. This one had to go that way.



    Now, it's possible that they could have slightly modified the standards by changing the interpretation of how far the licensee needed to go to accept FRAND terms, but to completely throw it out is absurd.



    A very big win for Apple is the ruling that affirms that FRAND means a lifetime license and the licensor can't simply terminate the license (as Motorola tried to do with Qualcomm).



    Well, if it had gone the OTHER way, it would have created a president where FRAND was untenable -- you'd basically have blood in the streets and Lawyers everywhere would be working overtime.



    Sure, THEY'D make a bundle, but all consumer electronics would have to go back to vacuum tubes.
  • melgrossmelgross Posts: 28,495member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleBeer View Post


    This wouldn't make much sense financially, but could Samsung refuse Apple's business?



    They could, but they won't. It's too great a percentage of their total.
  • melgrossmelgross Posts: 28,495member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tune View Post


    Or maybe they should be like Apple and just photoshop the difference.



    Yes, very amusing.
Sign In or Register to comment.