or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Samsung offers Apple a deal to allow Galaxy Tab 10.1 launch in Australia
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung offers Apple a deal to allow Galaxy Tab 10.1 launch in Australia - Page 2

post #41 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

This report just confirms what we suspected about Samsung's strategy. They don't care what they lose, or how long it takes, or how much it costs...they are going to sell the GalaxyTab one way or another, because they think they have a legit competitor to the iPad. They might be right, too. It's probably the only real threat to Apple at this point.

With Amazon on their heels, they must be starting to panic. And the Christmas shopping season is looming.

Looks like a precursor to a settlement in the US too (note the recent one with Microsoft).
post #42 of 78
Maybe Samsung will agree to transition away from Google Android. The recent licensing deal with Microsoft would put them in a position to make such a deal. This would hugely benefit both Apple and Samsung. It benefits Apple because it will be a huge blow to its biggest competitor and it benefits Samsung because they can sell their current tablets and start working on transitioning to Microsoft or their own Bada software, which is probably something they would want to do anyway. One issue that might be a problem is whether the deal is public or private. Apple obviously would want the deal to be public to hammer Google and its partners right now. Samsung will want to wait until they have transitioned out of Android before making the announcement to not reduce their sales.

I have no idea if that is what they are up to, but if I were Samsung, that is what I would offer.
post #43 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

With Amazon on their heels, they must be starting to panic. And the Christmas shopping season is looming.

Looks like a precursor to a settlement in the US too (note the recent one with Microsoft).

Amazon is a much bigger threat to Apple.
post #44 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

Amazon is a much bigger threat to Apple.

I think Amazon is a threat to a many right now but Apple is likely the least who should be worried. I think all trying to sell low-end tablets have the most to lose, in the long run Google could be seriously crippled, and Apple picking up the rear with a threat with a low-end tablet that also has a multimedia ecosystem, though the Kindle Fire could also be a training wheel tablet before customers commit to the iPad.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #45 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Absolutely false. There are a number of flaws in your statement:

1. There is nothing illegal about divisions of a company sharing information. Even if they are separate legal entities, as long as they're fully owned, they can share confidential information (I had to deal with that in my previous multinational).

Actually this is very illegal, I do NDA and Contracts all the time with companies like Samsung who have different business units which most opperate under various legal enities and those there is language in those deals which clearly state they can not pass information shared with one business with another even is you do business with both.

Just so you know Samsung Operating each BU as separate legal enities and this is done for various reasons because they operate this way they have to maintain a Chinese Wall between those business, whether they really do or not is up for debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

2. Even if they decided NOT to share information between the divisions, it could be done at a higher level. The CEO of Samsung could order the components division to lower their prices for Apple without saying why.

You are right he could do this, but there are anti-competitive laws which would not allow this. If a company/BU offered a special deal like this they would have to back it up on what drove that deal, such as Apple gave them more business for a better price.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

3. Even if THAT isn't acceptable, all the phone division would have to do is tell Apple "we'll pay you $2.00 for every GB of Flash memory you buy from our components division or $4 for every CPU you buy from our components division".

Yes, they could offer some sort of rebate, but again, there are strict rules how this is done. Apple would have to show why they got these rebate and what they were based on. The fact that Samsung has gotten in trouble in the past for price fix and does credit rebates in the memory space, and Apple got a big chunk of money because the the FTC actions brought against Samsung and Hynix at the time.

I deal with these kinds of deals all the time so I very familiar what a company can do legally or ethically. The problem is you are dealing with two companies on the ethics scale and I am pretty sure Apple is not going to compromise their ethics.
post #46 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

You're kidding, right? Right?

No?

Oh well.

The frakking deal is secret. It's right damn there, "mystery deal". You aren't a special person

Gee all that in the story, for everyone to see in plain monitor-light? Where's the intelligence in this world!?!

hostile.

really dude? go smoke a fat one then jump back on the computer.
post #47 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

Actually this is very illegal, I do NDA and Contracts all the time with companies like Samsung who have different business units which most opperate under various legal enities and those there is language in those deals which clearly state they can not pass information shared with one business with another even is you do business with both.

This seems like an eminently sensible point of view. Despite having a "common ownership," such Chinese Walls are (were?) common in the financial services industry. Consulting and law firms often have to deal with issue too?
post #48 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Beige View Post

The "story" posted by AI is not a story, it's an announcement, devoid of facts, except for one, the innocuous "Samsung has offered Apple a mystery deal" lead.

Even the headline "Samsung offers Apple a deal to allow Galaxy Tab 10.1 launch in Australia " is misleading, as there is NO DEAL.

No deal - no story.

But my question was not directed to the over-caffeinated, self-righteous posters seen here but rather to the AI staff itself. Perhaps I should of dumbed it down for everyone, as in. "Where's the beef?"

Take my advice: you're going to get hurt one day jumping to conclusions - as I did read the whole story.



That right there was so self indulgent and misapplied that even the baby sees the error of your ways.

It's not a deal because it's not accepted? You just created a new logic that singularly prevents the rest of humanities history from ever consummating a deal because you can't have one unless it's offered, but unless it was offered you can't have a deal, so if there's no deal theres no offer possible, so no deal is possible.

You crack us up. As we can see the baby ruled. You earn the facepalm!
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #49 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac_dog View Post

hostile.

really dude? go smoke a fat one then jump back on the computer.

Not hostile, truthful without dancing around trying to find a Stuart Smalley affirmation to soften the impact.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #50 of 78
Wall Street is so predictable. They ditch hard their shorts before new products like clock work.
post #51 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I don't believe that's always true. Apple offered Nokia a deal rather than let a judge decide, but it's not proof that their hand was weak. Some things just become huge distractions, better for both sides to settle rather than continuing down the same path.

Apple offered Nokia the same deal they offered them before the lawsuits. Nokia accepted it. The Non-disclosure end of the deal allowed Nokia to save face.

In five years Nokia will either be completely revamped at the top or it will be out of the smartphone high end market.

Five years is being kind.
post #52 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

Amazon is a much bigger threat to Apple.

History has shown the Apple's strategy has worked for them against cheaper competitors. Amazon strategy is nothing new. Apple will continue to grow and will accelerate further once the economic conditions improve. There is a very good market for people willing to pay for premium products. Regardless of market share. Its about profits. Amazon's business is low margin high volume. Their operating margin is 2%!!! Apple's is 33%. Apple sells every single unit.

Math question. How many Android Fire units do you have to sell for every one iPad to get the same profit? Even Apple with all its cash in the bank can not keep up with enough production for demand. If Amazon is going to compete with Apple on profit, just how are they going to manufacture that number of units computed above? What magic will Amazon use to manufacture several magnitude more units then Apple, when Apple can barely keep up with the demand now?

No.. the HW OEM that are in it from profit margins are a threat to Apple. Google proper is more of a threat to Amazon. Both of which make their money on content, not profit from HW margins. Amazon lacks any HW engineering experience and any tablet OS experience. The Fire design was contracted out. So was the Kindle.
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #53 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by iKol View Post

"We will redirect our nuclear warheads away from Cupertino."

Those warheads probably won't even work, and it'll take Samsung 8 weeks to fix 'em

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #54 of 78
I hope the Kindle Fire and Galaxy Tab 10.1 are here to stay. Any competition that might make Apple lower their price point or accelerate their innovation and addition of new features in next gen Ipads is a great thing for consumers as far as I'm concerned.
post #55 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrowspark View Post

I hope the Kindle Fire and Galaxy Tab 10.1 are here to stay. Any competition that might make Apple lower their price point or accelerate their innovation and addition of new features in next gen Ipads is a great thing for consumers as far as I'm concerned.

definitely. Competition is good. Google with Galaxy Tab may push Apple on innovation (i.e. notification system). Microsoft may also as well with the Windows tablet for concepts which are NEW (i.e. split keyboard). Doubt Kindle Fire will push Apple on innovation or prices for the points I highlighted above.
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #56 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post

As the old saying goes, "Don't throw stones in a glass house." Before you make claims of 'dumbing things down for everyone', you might want to ensure your grammar and spelling are up to par. In your case, it is a lovely run-on sentence at the beginning and a few missing comma's throughout. But hey, maybe you were just dumbing it down, right? Wink wink

Comma's what?
post #57 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Apple offered Nokia the same deal they offered them before the lawsuits. Nokia accepted it. The Non-disclosure end of the deal allowed Nokia to save face.

In five years Nokia will either be completely revamped at the top or it will be out of the smartphone high end market.

Five years is being kind.

I believe you're mistaken. I don't think Apple ever offered to license iPhone and other patents to Nokia at any time prior to the final offer. In the final agreement Nokia was offered a license to some Apple patents, including at least some "that make the iPhone unique".

From the official Apple media statement:"Apple and Nokia have agreed to drop all of our current lawsuits and enter into a license covering some of each others' patents, but not the majority of the innovations that make the iPhone unique. . ."

Which means they gave Nokia a licence to some of the essential iPhone patents. That doesn't sound like something Apple would do willingly does it?Obvious that Nokia was holding a pretty good hand in Apple's viewpoint, but not proof that Apple didn't have strong cards themselves. IMO they just weren't willing to roll the dice, doing whatever was needed to make it all go away rther than go to court.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #58 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

Actually this is very illegal, I do NDA and Contracts all the time with companies like Samsung who have different business units which most opperate under various legal enities and those there is language in those deals which clearly state they can not pass information shared with one business with another even is you do business with both.

You know, if you do NDA and contracts all the time, you'd think that you'd understand the difference between "illegal" and "written into a contract". Heck, the fact that you have to write it into the contract proves that it's not illegal. If it were illegal, there'd be no need to put it into the contract.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

Just so you know Samsung Operating each BU as separate legal enities and this is done for various reasons because they operate this way they have to maintain a Chinese Wall between those business, whether they really do or not is up for debate.

No, they don't. You just established that they only have to separate the BUs if they have a contractual obligation to do so. Without a contractual requirement, they don't have to. And it's not illegal even if they DO have a contractual requirement to keep BUs separate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

You are right he could do this, but there are anti-competitive laws which would not allow this. If a company/BU offered a special deal like this they would have to back it up on what drove that deal, such as Apple gave them more business for a better price.

Which "anti-competitive law" () would not allow it? The fact is that Samsung could offer all sorts of justifications for it. Ending a lawsuit that could potentially cost them many millions of dollars would be more than sufficient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

Yes, they could offer some sort of rebate, but again, there are strict rules how this is done. Apple would have to show why they got these rebate and what they were based on. The fact that Samsung has gotten in trouble in the past for price fix and does credit rebates in the memory space, and Apple got a big chunk of money because the the FTC actions brought against Samsung and Hynix at the time.

It has nothing to do with price fixing. It has to do with Samsung agreeing to give a discount on one product to settle litigation on another product.

But feel free to cite the specific law that makes that illegal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

I deal with these kinds of deals all the time so I very familiar what a company can do legally or ethically. The problem is you are dealing with two companies on the ethics scale and I am pretty sure Apple is not going to compromise their ethics.

Once again, you'd think that if you deal with this all the time that you'd understand the difference between something being illegal and being a negotiated contract point.

There would be absolutely nothing unethical for Apple to accept a discount on CPUs in exchange for dropping their phone litigation. Nothing at all.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #59 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

Comma's what?

post #60 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I believe you're mistaken. I don't think Apple ever offered to license iPhone and other patents to Nokia at any time prior to the final offer. In the final agreement Nokia was offered a license to some Apple patents, including at least some "that make the iPhone unique".

From the official Apple media statement:"Apple and Nokia have agreed to drop all of our current lawsuits and enter into a license covering some of each others' patents, but not the majority of the innovations that make the iPhone unique. . ."

Which means they gave Nokia a licence to some of the essential iPhone patents. That doesn't sound like something Apple would do willingly does it?Obvious that Nokia was holding a pretty good hand in Apple's viewpoint, but not proof that Apple didn't have strong cards themselves. IMO they just weren't willing to roll the dice, doing whatever was needed to make it all go away rther than go to court.

Believe what you want. You deal realize or maybe you don't that 99% of Apple's Patent Portfolio on Software and Hardware across all avenues of the Computing Industry have nothing to do with the iPhone/iPad/iPod/iPod Touch, right? Apple has patents in CPUs, Memory Management, Bus Architectures, RF Technologies, I/O, Operating Systems up the wazzu, etc, right?

Sorry, but Apple didn't license essential iPhone Patents. It licensed patents inside the iPhone. Everything from circuit board design, to radio technologies, to basic power management would be the types of patents Apple is willing to cross-license exclusively to Nokia for standard FRAND licensing fees.

You added the term essential. Having worked for Steve twice at NeXT and Apple, language is paramount to him. If they were essential the word would be in the litigation.
post #61 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Believe what you want. You deal realize or maybe you don't that 99% of Apple's Patent Portfolio on Software and Hardware across all avenues of the Computing Industry have nothing to do with the iPhone/iPad/iPod/iPod Touch, right? Apple has patents in CPUs, Memory Management, Bus Architectures, RF Technologies, I/O, Operating Systems up the wazzu, etc, right?

Sorry, but Apple didn't license essential iPhone Patents. It licensed patents inside the iPhone. Everything from circuit board design, to radio technologies, to basic power management would be the types of patents Apple is willing to cross-license exclusively to Nokia for standard FRAND licensing fees.

You added the term essential. Having worked for Steve twice at NeXT and Apple, language is paramount to him. If they were essential the word would be in the litigation.

Since it was Apple that referred to them as "innovations that make the iPhone unique", why would you then argue that they weren't essential to what makes the iPhone, well, the iPhone.

NO matter how you'd like to spin it, Apple licensed at least some patents to Nokia that make the iPhone unique, thus essential to the iPhone experience. Far from Nokia "saving face" as you'd would claim, if anyone it was Apple trying to minimize what they gave up in the Nokia settlement by their very careful choice of words.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #62 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

Does this mean Samsung feels their counter suit case isn't as strong as Apple's copycat case?

Considering that Samsung patent profolio is many times thicker than Apple's tiny user interface design patents, I doubt it. Samsung is #2 in patents granted in US last year (or 27,000+ so far) and has the largest 3G / wireless porfolio.
post #63 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

Considering that Samsung patent profolio is many times thicker than Apple's tiny user interface design patents, I doubt it. Samsung is #2 in patents granted in US last year (or 27,000+ so far) and has the largest 3G / wireless porfolio.

The number of patents has no barring as the validity of your patents in a specific case so your argument that Samsung's position is many times stronger holds no water, and that's even before we consider the diversity of Samsung Group (삼성그룹 / Samseong Geurup / sam'sʌŋ gɯ'ɾup) compared to Apple in relation to relevant patents that would deal solely with handheld devices.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #64 of 78
I know I'm going to look pedantic posting this, but, as an Australian legal practitioner, I want to point out a technical inaccuracy in the original article:

Stephen Burley is not an attorney. He is a barrister. The only attorneys we have in Australia are:

1. Patent Attorneys, who are specialist solicitors who deal with patent registration; and
2. Attorneys, who are individuals who act on behalf of someone who is, in some way, incapacitated (as in, people who hold Power of Attorney for someone else).

Stephen Burley is a barrister -- a lawyers who specialises in advocacy. For those from countries without split legal professions, we in Australia (along with the UK, and various other Commonwealth countries) have a split profession, where we have solicitors, who do the everyday legal work, like transactional law (contracts, etc.) and litigation (but generally not the actual talking in court), and we have barristers, who do nothing but advocacy (they do the talking at court, and also do things like mediation). Solicitors tend to work in firms (law firms, like in the US), whereas barristers are required by law to work as individuals.

Clients don't directly retain/instruct barristers. Clients instruct solicitors. Solicitors, in turn, brief barristers when they're needed.

Furthermore, Stephen Burley is Senior Counsel (also referred to as "a silk", because they wear silk robes in court), an honorary title bestowed on the top barristers by the Supreme Courts of the states and territories.** As such, it is actually rather disrespectful to refer to the man as Stephen Burley. He should be referred to as Stephen Burley SC.


** And which is a virtual licence to seriously jack up prices. I don't know how much barristers charge in Sydney, and certainly not what commercial barristers charge. I work in family law in Melbourne. The very good family barristers who are not Senior Counsel charge about $3,500 per day. The family silks in Melbourne charge $7,700 per day.
post #65 of 78
Have you ever smacked you gavel while sliding down a barrister?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #66 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Beige View Post
The "story" posted by AI is not a story, it's an announcement, devoid of facts, except for one, the innocuous "Samsung has offered Apple a mystery deal" lead.

Even the headline "Samsung offers Apple a deal to allow Galaxy Tab 10.1 launch in Australia " is misleading, as there is NO DEAL.

No deal - no story.

But my question was not directed to the over-caffeinated, self-righteous posters seen here but rather to the AI staff itself. Perhaps I should of dumbed it down for everyone, as in. "Where's the beef?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post



That right there was so self indulgent and misapplied that even the baby sees the error of your ways.

It's not a deal because it's not accepted? You just created a new logic that singularly prevents the rest of humanities history from ever consummating a deal because you can't have one unless it's offered, but unless it was offered you can't have a deal, so if there's no deal theres no offer possible, so no deal is possible.

You crack us up. As we can see the baby ruled. You earn the facepalm!

Thats right, you must be...

post #67 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Have you ever smacked you gavel while sliding down a barrister?

The word you were looking for is "bannister" I think? Unless you mean something totally different!!
post #68 of 78
So the entire Samsung/Apple argument can be boiled down to this:

Apple: Stop copying our stuff, please.
Samsung: What!? We're not copying! How dare you!
Apple: We just got your tablet banned in Germany and Australia because of how well you copied us.
Samsung:This is outrageous! We are going to kick you in the teeth!
Apple: Uhm... yeah, okay ya know... whatever.
Samsung: ... PLEAAASSSEEE let us sell the Galaxy in Australia! We'll give you shiny things!

... at night.

Reply

... at night.

Reply
post #69 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkalu View Post

Wow!
Samsung finally bowed to Apple after all the foolishness.

Actually not. See what will happen next week. Sammy is preparing for a big present to Apple. A big bomb.
post #70 of 78
Sammy is already preparing for G S3 with Enoxy Dual/Quad core 1.5GHz, True 4G LTE, 16 MP camera for Verizon. They solved battery issues and all the aspects Apple claimed are totally erased. You will find more next week. You can keep discuss whether new iPhone 5 will have 3G HSPDA speed or not in Feb, 2012.
post #71 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post

The word you were looking for is "bannister" I think? Unless you mean something totally different!!

I think he was being ironical...
..... the greatest fame comes from adding to human knowledge, not winning battles.
Paraphrased from Napolean Bonaparte, 1798
Reply
..... the greatest fame comes from adding to human knowledge, not winning battles.
Paraphrased from Napolean Bonaparte, 1798
Reply
post #72 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

The number of patents has no barring as the validity of your patents in a specific case so your argument that Samsung's position is many times stronger holds no water, and that's even before we consider the diversity of Samsung Group (삼성그룹 / Samseong Geurup / sam'sʌŋ gɯ'ɾup) compared to Apple in relation to relevant patents that would deal solely with handheld devices.

No, probably not, but it's extremely unlikely that Samsung would use "weak", as opposed to "strong" patents - 3 3G patents out of Samsung Electronics's 27,000 patents granted in US - to fight Apple. As for my comments about the size of Samsung's patents, the point is to underscore Samsung's know-how and dominance in 3G technology.

Furthermore, Apple never denied that the patents are invalid (and had 3 months to raise alarm). Apple initially claimed that there was no infringement since iPhones use chips made by Infineon / Intel who had licensing agreement with Samsung. But when it turned out that their licensing agreement expired in 2009, Apple decided to accuse Samsung of rigging the 3G standard, rather than question the validity of the patents.

Also, Samsung Electronics, a division of Samsung conglomerate, owns some 27,000+ technology patents in US (4518 new patents granted in 2011 alone). And remember, Samsung has been making mobile devices for at least a full decade longer than Apple and still #1 in mobile devices units sold worldwide - vast majority of its patents are in fact in mobile technology (followed by memory).
post #73 of 78
If Sammy does not sell any parts to Apple, Apple cannot make new meaningful products for two years. For example, the reason new iPhone5 does not have 4G LTE is Sammy does not develop a LTE-CDMA integrated chip (Sammy will have that next year). If Windows 8 Mobile is somewhat decent OS, Sammy can dumb Apple now. They know they can beat Apple easily with 20 nano quad core 2G processor & memory (I hope you can understand the power 20-nano), new screen you can enjoy under the direct sunlight, 16 MP camera etc (Sammy only parts in 2012..World only. You cannot buy them from Japan or China and you have Not seen them in 2011). IF Windows 8 mobile is decent...at least close to previous Android, another PC-Mac case for textbooks And Sammy's cash safe is as deep as Apple, too. Two decent OSs will be enough for making that decision.
post #74 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Since it was Apple that referred to them as "innovations that make the iPhone unique", why would you then argue that they weren't essential to what makes the iPhone, well, the iPhone.

NO matter how you'd like to spin it, Apple licensed at least some patents to Nokia that make the iPhone unique, thus essential to the iPhone experience. Far from Nokia "saving face" as you'd would claim, if anyone it was Apple trying to minimize what they gave up in the Nokia settlement by their very careful choice of words.

Google really, ought to hire shills who can actually reason correctly. There are any number of ways they might not be "essential to the iPhone experience." One obvious way is that Nokia got some old patents that represent technology that Apple was about to stop using -- i.e., they made it unique at the time of the statement but aren't essential going forward. You're trying really hard to put words in the mouths of Apple executives, but your spin is more than a bit wobbly.
post #75 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Google really, ought to hire shills who can actually reason correctly. There are any number of ways they might not be "essential to the iPhone experience." One obvious way is that Nokia got some old patents that represent technology that Apple was about to stop using -- i.e., they made it unique at the time of the statement but aren't essential going forward. .

. . .Which would still make my post valid as of the time of settlement, so I don't know why you're arguing that my statement was obviously wrong.

If your guess was correct, then why even mention iPhone patents? Why do you you believe they were old and no longer useful going forward? If they held no value, then what was the purpose of Apple even mentioning that they licensed some of the patents that make the iPhone unique?

BTW, your "egregious troll" response doesn't add to the post. I've answered your silly charge more than once, and yet you mention the same "shill" accusation in nearly every response to me, even tho I try my best to remain respectful.

Most of the other regulars have been trying to avoid personal attacks recently, even apologizing for past misdeeds, and the forums have been better for it.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=133031
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #76 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

You don't offer a deal unless you know your hand is weak.

Bullshit. A deal is always better than letting some judge determine your fate. You tailor a deal to be exactly what both parties are willing to do. A judge's edict may be borked in any number of ways, some ways more inconvenient than others.

Both parties want to settle if mutually acceptable solutions can be found.
post #77 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That is true.

Similarly, the fact that Apple said that there would be some benefits to the deal doesn't mean that it's a good deal for Apple.

Let's say Samsung said "we propose that Apple drop the case and pay all of our legal expenses and immediately withdraw the iPad from the market to make room for the Tab". That would obviously be an insanely stupid thing for Apple to agree to, but it would still be true that there were some benefits to Apple (reduction of uncertainty and elimination of legal expenses). But that clearly doesn't make it a good deal.

Saying that there are some benefits is about as useless a statement as someone could make other than keeping their mouths shut.


Wow. Very good point. I gotta give it to you this time.
post #78 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Beige View Post

Thats right, you must be...

That's the best you can do? Mere semi-humorous personal attack with no reference to post content itself? Wow, your powers of debate are even more abysmal than I thought.
.
Reply
.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Samsung offers Apple a deal to allow Galaxy Tab 10.1 launch in Australia
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Samsung offers Apple a deal to allow Galaxy Tab 10.1 launch in Australia