Verizon comes to Samsung's defense in Apple patent lawsuit - Page 2

Appears reasonable (but for the sake of condescension) but wrong (and thus making the whole argument foolish).

Indeed. Survival never looked so good. Apple, I hear, is also doing well in the survival game.

Yeah right. Apple is not that foolish.

if Time Cook is reading this, there is a lot of good advice here on what to do

i'm sure all those people who want SSD's won't want the ones with the samsung flash from that new high tech factory they just built

Verizon will take back the intervene if were allowed to put logo on iPhone.

The same thing or worse was also said about the cell phone business.

Apple TV sets would be IP based unlike today's tv sets.

The question is - what does this mean to the customer? The benefits of a smartphone are obvious - we can surf the web and use it essentially like a very small computer. Likewise for a tablet. For a TV? What do you gain that cannot be had from an external box? How well did TVs with integrated DVD players sell? Slapping the Apple logo on something does not automatically make it better. To repeat, what does a so-called smart TV do that cannot be done on a standard TV with an Apple TV on the side?

That's only the tip of the iceberg. Apple is the only phone manufacturer that controls its own products - branding, timing, contents, pricing and distribution. The logo is only the tip of what carriers see as a larger problem.

@verizon: Incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.

Verizon is walking a really beautiful fine line in this brief. They are arguing on behalf of one of their suppliers, with whom they hope to maintain good relations, from a purely business perspective all the while planting the seeds for cross examination by Apple's lawyers. They make no argument that is in any way relevant to the IP infringement case. It's really quite skillfully done.

So you think Samsung put them up to this? Don't think so. They definitely have vested interest to act on their own volition. The Galaxy line is their second best-selling phone. They do not want to see it banned.

A similar question could be asked about standard cellphones with an iTouch on the side.

After the heat from the iPhone 5 release subsides I can see Samsung becoming Verizon's #1 selling phone manufacturer since Samsung is also offering LTE phones... and that is where Verizon wants to go.

Strange timing though.

Surely you jest?

This same rationale may be behind Apple's all out effort against Samsung. After all, their initial legal action was against HTC (I believe?), when HTC was the leading Android vendor. Now that Samsung is the clear winner amongst Android handsets, Apple is trying to stifle them.

Such easy words to spew. Yet they do more to diminish the utterer's credibility than that of the target.

I'd much rather do that than ever pay $4,000 for a television.

A remote control system that just works.

A content discovery system that is engaging.

Pushing two-way communication into the forefront at a living room scale.

There wasn't much time left if they wanted their points considered. The next hearing is October 13th.

As expected Florian Mueller considers anything not supporting Apple as an attack, leaving little doubt IMHO that Apple is one his clients. He's certainly in over-the-top bulldog mode.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...r-verizon.html
"This attempt by Verizon to interfere with Apple's enforcement of intellectual property rights against Android in general and Samsung in particular is a declaration of war that may have far-reaching consequences in the U.S. market."

I've never believed that Apple is trying to stifle Samsung from fear of competition... I've always believed that Samsung betrayed Apple's trust at some point (ie. used prior knowledge for their own products etc.) but Apple has no direct proof to take to court so they are going after Samsung in any way possible.

I realize that Apple is going after others as well but it seems that Samsung is always being hit the hardest.

I'm sure, though, that Apple is fully aware that you can't keep going after every vendor all of the time because it just becomes a big game of whack-a-mole and you'll never win forever... so that's what makes me think there is more to this than meets the eye.

Time will tell. In the mean time they are both doing well.

As soon as I read Mueller's name I didn't bother to read it... realizing that it was just business for Verizon. It's just the same thing that Apple and Samsung are doing/would do if and when injunctions against their products are enforced. Nobody likes to have a big percentage of their business removed (and, as another point... I doubt this will affect the Verizon/Apple relationship... it would hurt Apple to stop selling on Verizon... and make Apple look stupid).

Declaration of war... pfffftt

Rape is a violent sexual assult on another person. Molestation carries the idea of sexual assult on a child and pedophilia. This is an intellectual property dispute. The two have nothing to do with each other.

GOD.......
This forum is amazing... and worse than 9/11 conspiracy theory...

Apple buys Samsung, Apple will make better TV, Verizon won´t get the new iPhone...

You all guys are incredibly blind...

The amazing thing is that you're reading those comments at face value and actually taking the trolls seriously.

I think you missed the point (and this goes for stelligent too...I wish I knew how to quote more than one post). Yes, you're right that by intervening with this brief, Verizon has to end up favoring one side of the case more than the other. But I was talking about their intentions. Verizon is doing this for what they see as bolstering their best interests. They don't care about the success of Samsung's product line beyond the extent that it affects their business. They don't care about Apple claiming infringement of intellectual property. They don't care whether Samsung infringed Apple's intellectual property. What they do care about, though, is that one of their most important hardware suppliers is attempting to put another one of their most important hardware suppliers out of business. It wouldn't matter who sued who or over what. All they see is that this case has the potential to hurt their business, and they're letting the courts know.

Read this: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...e_of_java.html

No, you missed my point completely. I think they came out in support of Samsung on their own but in a way that made no comment on the merits of Apple's IP infringement suit and leaving open plenty of room for Apple's attorney's. I think they played both sides beautifully.
Further, I can't see anything I wrote that would imply that I thought "Samsung out them up to this." Are you sure you were responding to the correct post?

Then please describe how a hit on Verizon's business is relevant to intellectual property infringement involving two other companies.

It's all about being selfish and only looking out for one's self or institution that's a reason the world is in the financial straits it's in today. No one cares about anyone else, just how it benefits them or their business. We need to bring back that Union mentality of the 20th century where if the maintenance people had a valid grievance and went on strike the Machinists, Teamsters, and Guild workers wouldn't cross the picket lines until their Union Brothers were heard. Now if Apple infringed on a Verizon Patent how would they feel if Samsung backed Apple in ripping off Verizon. Labor Unions were formed originally to combat the selfish attitudes of owners and management now that they have been neutered by governments selfishness and greed is again the Mantra of the Corporate World.
As was stated earlier Verizon should have played Switzerland and remained neutral. Apple has spent years and Million of $ developing a very friendly user interface and to have a company so blatantly mimic the look and feel should be unconscionable. It not even causing a twinge of guilt brings into being the integrity of the infringing company. Segments of the Asian Theater are notorious for cloning another designers IP and then selling it on the world market to the detriment of the original designers product (Clothes, Appliances, Automobiles, Cosmetics, etc). And for these agencies (ITC,FTC) to take over a year to hear and act on these time sensitive issues is also a travesty by the time the case is heard new products have been introduced and the issues at complaint are already outdated. It's like in the time of war bringing the firing on a particular target before congress for approval before pressing the fire button.

Yes, Samsung is being hit the hardest. And the Galaxy II numbers are really impressive. They have sold 10M units in less than 6 months, with most of the sales outside of US.

Mueller is pissed that Google abuses FOSS with their "open" stance which they use as marketing bulls*t, part of which probably also involves paying people to make posts like the posts you make in attempt to discredit ANYTHING he says on various tech sites and blogs, like this one.

Gatorguy was pro Mueller when it appeared that he was against Apple (Motorola/HTC vs. Apple)... but that quickly changed... \

Mueller was against Apple? I missed that. Love to read it. Any link?

Mueller uncovers some good material. But I do believe his Apple bias is a bit strong, and taints his analysis.

Apple aren't trying to put Samsung out of business, they just want them to stop copying their stuff, as the German judge said, there is plenty of room to come up with designs that don't infringe on Apple's IP.

The key here is that Verizon's brief is intended not to take sides on the patent infringement case, but to argue against a preliminary injunction. If you understand that, the rest follows.

That makes sense, particularly since Apple cannot possibly put Samsung out of business.

You almost have it right (except the part about putting anyone out of business, which is absurd). But you're missing the point that the brief is aimed at stopping the preliminary injunction. Understand that, and you'll understand I'm right again, as usual

I've never been pro-Mueller, but true that I never had an issue with him when he first got on my radar. After a few months reading his blogs, comparing him with other sources, paying closer attention to all his posts and doing some add'l research, I have a completely different view of him. Do some research yourself if you still believe he's not working on Microsoft's behalf, and now has the appearance of adding Apple as a client.

Start with an easy Google search: Florian Mueller Microsoft client

Then just follow-up from there.

You guys are silly and biased. First I don't recall hearing of Verizon taking losses in any recent quarters. In fact they're doing well. There's one Apple troll down . That aside why would they lock Verizon users out of an upgrade path? You think spite is a solid basis for doing business? It's not. Doing any of these things would be like telling all of these people it's a choice between Verizon and the iphone. Your own opinions on which way such a decision should go don't matter, because it's not a choice they should have to make.

If you look at the original iphone, Apple was also in negotiations with Verizon, but they couldn't agree on terms. It wasn't a case of AT&T being better. They were simply willing to agree to Apple's terms.

If you go to the Verizon site and click through to phones, the rollover image used to advertise smart phones is a Samsung phone. They probably sell quite a few so it's understandable that this puts them in a bad position right now.