First, Samsung can not simply stop shipping products to Apple without violating their supply agreements - and losing billions of dollars in damages.
Second, there's not a single thing in the iPhone or iPad that Apple can't get from someone else. In fact, the majority of items already have second source suppliers.
So Apple is inconvenienced for a while - and collects billions of dollars from Samsung for breaking their contracts while Samsung loses $7 B a year in revenues.
Somehow, I don't think that's what Samsung wants.
Unless their contract is expiring and is due for renewal shortly.
Someone around here mentioned that Apple purchases contribute to 2% of Samsung sales, which - if true - is not something Samsung could not assimilate. I would expect Apple contributes more to Samsung's well-being, though, when you thing of it, Apple sells their products with decent premium but they do not necessarily pay premium for Samsung bits; in fact, they probably get better pricing than army of smaller buyers.
At this point, the iPhone 5 is nothing more than vaporware. So what is Samsung doing planning a legal offensive against a piece of vaporware?
Unless, Samsung knows something that we don't. Better yet, what if Samsung's phone bosses know something that they aren't supposed to know?
Samsung's component and phone businesses are separate units. Apple makes the components business sign an NDA. Again, how can Samsung plan a legal offensive against a product that doesn't exist? If it comes out that the components unit violated the NDA, that's not good for them. Even if Apple doesn't sue, competitors like HTC may choose to go elsewhere if it becomes evident that Samsung will gain an advantage from being their component supplier.
I kind of understand what you are coming from, but I think GM and Ford mimicking each others models is not the same thing as Samsung copying Apple products. Nobody honestly thinks that only Apple should have a monopoly on rectangular devices with a glass screen and a button on the front, just like no-one honestly thinks only Ford can make a box on wheels.
The Apple vs. Samsung case is not just about how the Galaxy tabs/phones look so much like iPad and the iPhone, it's about what is usually called the 'trade dress' that Samsung is copying from Apple. This includes the hardware itself, the software (up to the iTunes clone that Samsung made), the feature set, the packaging, which consumers the products are targeted at, the way they are marketed, basically every aspect of the product that is supposed make people want to buy it. Samsung is trying to copy everything about the iPad and iPhone, trying to lure the exact same customers as Apple is targeting with the iPad.
In the Ford/GM example, neither of these two companies introduced, invented or popularized the mid-size family saloon, or added anything substantial to mid-size family saloons that didn't already exist. They were both already in the business of making cars, there has always been a demand for mid-size saloons, so they both came up with a car that fit that segment, and apparently one of them ripped off the others design.
With the iPad and iPhone, Apple launched products that were a complete departure from everything that came before it, taking a few very bold decisions that many, many people have laughed at and ridiculed, but eventually turned out to be the big selling points of iOS devices. Apple took all these design and product decisions on their own accord, they developed their own software, and basically innovated almost everything about iOS devices themselves (note: 'innovate' is not the same as 'invent'). Seeing the succes of iOS devices, Samsung simply decided to imitate everything about them, going after the exact same customers using the exact same hardware running software that looks almost exactly the same (touchwiz, kies), advertising it as direct competitor to iOS products (except 'better'), and so on.
I think this whole Apple vs Samsung war is about all of this, not just about how much the iPad looks like a Galaxy Tab. If that were true, Apple would be suing the manufacturers of about every tablet on the market, because they all look the same. They sued Samsung, because Samsung is trying to get a free ride on Apples success using products that you could almost call KIRFs with a big-brand name on them.
I don't really agree with you here. I still think that, from GUI point of view, my iPhone is not that much different from my old Palm Tungsten; matrix of icons on colour touch screen. And there was Palm Desktop software for syncing addresses, calendar, ToDo... and transferring media between PC and PDA.
Apple refined all that nicely with iOS and (to lesser degree, arguably) iTunes, but I personnally don't see that as new invention.
The guy didn't say anything about Apple inventing anything. He said Apple INNOVATED! Just wanted to point that out. In fact the guy made it a point to differentiate the two words invented and innovated. \ So why are you still in disagreement with his point?
Perhaps I misread, but I don't believe it's the NDA itself that contains the info on Apple products Samsung alleges are patent infringement. It would seem highly irregular for an NDA to include such specific product info; normally an NDA would merely govern the disclosure of info in other documents.
The original assertion from AnOldAplGuy was not that the NDA itself was submitted as evidence, but that the NDA should prevent the sharing of info from other documents as part of a court filing, since court filings are usually a matter of public record.
However, this view is predicated on a misreading of both the headline and the body of the article, which clearly note that Samsung is merely "planning" to file infringement claims after public release of the product, not that they had done so already.
While the iPhone 5 was mentioned as one of several products allegedly infringing on Samsung patents, the actual source article notes:
It may well be that any current filings by Samsung against Apple include only released products, and filings against the iPhone 5 will only come after public disclosure of the product, completely obviating AnOldAplGuy's suggestion.
That would make much more sense. I think the OP was really just noting, as others have done, that is rather odd to announce that you intend to commence proceedings for patent violations after the launch of a future product that you either know nothing about, or only know about via information covered by an NDA. On the other hand it was an unattributed source, so who knows what is really planned.
That would make much more sense. I think the OP was really just noting, as others have done, that is rather odd to announce that you intend to commence proceedings for patent violations after the launch of a future product that you either know nothing about, or only know about via information covered by an NDA. On the other hand it was an unattributed source, so who knows what is really planned.
Samsung is claiming on a patent for all the underlying wireless technology. They don't seem to care what features are actually in the iPhone 5, because their alleged condition for avoiding the suit is that Apple remove all mobile communications capability.
The mere fact that the iPhone exists at all is apparently why they're suing. What I don't know is why they haven't already sued for the first four generations of iPhone.
And it's still a frivolous suit, unless they want to now allege that companies making chips under license are not allow to sell them to Samsung's competitors. I'd love to see them try and make that claim.
Samsung is claiming on a patent for all the underlying wireless technology. They don't seem to care what features are actually in the iPhone 5, because their alleged condition for avoiding the suit is that Apple remove all mobile communications capability.
The mere fact that the iPhone exists at all is apparently why they're suing. What I don't know is why they haven't already sued for the first four generations of iPhone.
And it's still a frivolous suit, unless they want to now allege that companies making chips under license are not allow to sell them to Samsung's competitors. I'd love to see them try and make that claim.
Agreed, and also one might think that it would considerably weaken their case that they have waited so long to sue, if they now intend to argue that all the iPhones have infringed.
Samsung is claiming on a patent for all the underlying wireless technology. They don't seem to care what features are actually in the iPhone 5, because their alleged condition for avoiding the suit is that Apple remove all mobile communications capability.
The mere fact that the iPhone exists at all is apparently why they're suing. What I don't know is why they haven't already sued for the first four generations of iPhone.
And it's still a frivolous suit, unless they want to now allege that companies making chips under license are not allow to sell them to Samsung's competitors. I'd love to see them try and make that claim.
Cost benefit relationship.
Apple sees Samsung now as a threat and are taking legal actions against them.
Samsung, is like fine then, I had all these pent up disappointment built up so I'll use them now. A hidden card of sort.
If I were Apple, I simply wouldn't even bother to launch in Korea. They have plenty of other markets who want their products. I feel bad for all the Koreans who want an iPhone 5, but if your corporations are going to act childish...
I don't think Koreans would agree with your implication that Samsung is "their" corporation. Do Americans think Berkshire Hathaway is their corporation?
Kinda reminds me of the Soccer World Cup that was co-hosted there... There was this allegedly rigged match...
Yeah, I know which match you're talking about. But if you go back and rewatch the game, you'll see that the opposing team blew away a lot of easy chances. I mean instances when it was just the striker VS the S. Korean goalie and no defender in sight. Oh, the goalkeeper didn't even have to break into a sweat because the ball sailed over the goal post in one case.
Samsung is claiming on a patent for all the underlying wireless technology. They don't seem to care what features are actually in the iPhone 5, because their alleged condition for avoiding the suit is that Apple remove all mobile communications capability.
The mere fact that the iPhone exists at all is apparently why they're suing. What I don't know is why they haven't already sued for the first four generations of iPhone.
And it's still a frivolous suit, unless they want to now allege that companies making chips under license are not allow to sell them to Samsung's competitors. I'd love to see them try and make that claim.
Actually Samsung isn't currently making any "underlying wireless" claims against the iPhone. The entire article is based on the reporting of a rumor, no matter that the headline would imply that it's a fact. It's posted just to get Apple-nation riled up and in battle-mode IMHO. Rally the troops and all that.
Now, this nonsense about people being confused really is being taken to the extreme. No one is going to confuse a Samsung tablet with an Apple iPad. The branding alone makes it very clear what the devices are and who makes them. This applies to phones as well.
Talk to people who sell these phones. I did this over the weekend after reading an article last week. The customers are not THAT stupid. They know what an iPhone and iPad is and they know the difference between Apple products and Samsung products.
The time and money wasted on this superfluous nonsense is getting in the way of actually producing products.
I agree. I tinkered with my brother-in-law's Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 (the one banned in Germany) and visually it is different from iPads. Hardware-wise, I think the Galaxy Tab is on par with the iPad 2. Very fast. Response time very good. So I asked my bro-in-law how he likes it. He says he only uses it for web surfing.
Comments
Baloney.
First, Samsung can not simply stop shipping products to Apple without violating their supply agreements - and losing billions of dollars in damages.
Second, there's not a single thing in the iPhone or iPad that Apple can't get from someone else. In fact, the majority of items already have second source suppliers.
So Apple is inconvenienced for a while - and collects billions of dollars from Samsung for breaking their contracts while Samsung loses $7 B a year in revenues.
Somehow, I don't think that's what Samsung wants.
Unless their contract is expiring and is due for renewal shortly.
Someone around here mentioned that Apple purchases contribute to 2% of Samsung sales, which - if true - is not something Samsung could not assimilate. I would expect Apple contributes more to Samsung's well-being, though, when you thing of it, Apple sells their products with decent premium but they do not necessarily pay premium for Samsung bits; in fact, they probably get better pricing than army of smaller buyers.
Unless, Samsung knows something that we don't. Better yet, what if Samsung's phone bosses know something that they aren't supposed to know?
Samsung's component and phone businesses are separate units. Apple makes the components business sign an NDA. Again, how can Samsung plan a legal offensive against a product that doesn't exist? If it comes out that the components unit violated the NDA, that's not good for them. Even if Apple doesn't sue, competitors like HTC may choose to go elsewhere if it becomes evident that Samsung will gain an advantage from being their component supplier.
I kind of understand what you are coming from, but I think GM and Ford mimicking each others models is not the same thing as Samsung copying Apple products. Nobody honestly thinks that only Apple should have a monopoly on rectangular devices with a glass screen and a button on the front, just like no-one honestly thinks only Ford can make a box on wheels.
The Apple vs. Samsung case is not just about how the Galaxy tabs/phones look so much like iPad and the iPhone, it's about what is usually called the 'trade dress' that Samsung is copying from Apple. This includes the hardware itself, the software (up to the iTunes clone that Samsung made), the feature set, the packaging, which consumers the products are targeted at, the way they are marketed, basically every aspect of the product that is supposed make people want to buy it. Samsung is trying to copy everything about the iPad and iPhone, trying to lure the exact same customers as Apple is targeting with the iPad.
In the Ford/GM example, neither of these two companies introduced, invented or popularized the mid-size family saloon, or added anything substantial to mid-size family saloons that didn't already exist. They were both already in the business of making cars, there has always been a demand for mid-size saloons, so they both came up with a car that fit that segment, and apparently one of them ripped off the others design.
With the iPad and iPhone, Apple launched products that were a complete departure from everything that came before it, taking a few very bold decisions that many, many people have laughed at and ridiculed, but eventually turned out to be the big selling points of iOS devices. Apple took all these design and product decisions on their own accord, they developed their own software, and basically innovated almost everything about iOS devices themselves (note: 'innovate' is not the same as 'invent'). Seeing the succes of iOS devices, Samsung simply decided to imitate everything about them, going after the exact same customers using the exact same hardware running software that looks almost exactly the same (touchwiz, kies), advertising it as direct competitor to iOS products (except 'better'), and so on.
I think this whole Apple vs Samsung war is about all of this, not just about how much the iPad looks like a Galaxy Tab. If that were true, Apple would be suing the manufacturers of about every tablet on the market, because they all look the same. They sued Samsung, because Samsung is trying to get a free ride on Apples success using products that you could almost call KIRFs with a big-brand name on them.
Well stated. It really makes the point.
I don't really agree with you here. I still think that, from GUI point of view, my iPhone is not that much different from my old Palm Tungsten; matrix of icons on colour touch screen. And there was Palm Desktop software for syncing addresses, calendar, ToDo... and transferring media between PC and PDA.
Apple refined all that nicely with iOS and (to lesser degree, arguably) iTunes, but I personnally don't see that as new invention.
The guy didn't say anything about Apple inventing anything. He said Apple INNOVATED! Just wanted to point that out.
Perhaps I misread, but I don't believe it's the NDA itself that contains the info on Apple products Samsung alleges are patent infringement. It would seem highly irregular for an NDA to include such specific product info; normally an NDA would merely govern the disclosure of info in other documents.
The original assertion from AnOldAplGuy was not that the NDA itself was submitted as evidence, but that the NDA should prevent the sharing of info from other documents as part of a court filing, since court filings are usually a matter of public record.
However, this view is predicated on a misreading of both the headline and the body of the article, which clearly note that Samsung is merely "planning" to file infringement claims after public release of the product, not that they had done so already.
While the iPhone 5 was mentioned as one of several products allegedly infringing on Samsung patents, the actual source article notes:
It may well be that any current filings by Samsung against Apple include only released products, and filings against the iPhone 5 will only come after public disclosure of the product, completely obviating AnOldAplGuy's suggestion.
That would make much more sense. I think the OP was really just noting, as others have done, that is rather odd to announce that you intend to commence proceedings for patent violations after the launch of a future product that you either know nothing about, or only know about via information covered by an NDA. On the other hand it was an unattributed source, so who knows what is really planned.
That would make much more sense. I think the OP was really just noting, as others have done, that is rather odd to announce that you intend to commence proceedings for patent violations after the launch of a future product that you either know nothing about, or only know about via information covered by an NDA. On the other hand it was an unattributed source, so who knows what is really planned.
Samsung is claiming on a patent for all the underlying wireless technology. They don't seem to care what features are actually in the iPhone 5, because their alleged condition for avoiding the suit is that Apple remove all mobile communications capability.
The mere fact that the iPhone exists at all is apparently why they're suing. What I don't know is why they haven't already sued for the first four generations of iPhone.
And it's still a frivolous suit, unless they want to now allege that companies making chips under license are not allow to sell them to Samsung's competitors. I'd love to see them try and make that claim.
Samsung is claiming on a patent for all the underlying wireless technology. They don't seem to care what features are actually in the iPhone 5, because their alleged condition for avoiding the suit is that Apple remove all mobile communications capability.
The mere fact that the iPhone exists at all is apparently why they're suing. What I don't know is why they haven't already sued for the first four generations of iPhone.
And it's still a frivolous suit, unless they want to now allege that companies making chips under license are not allow to sell them to Samsung's competitors. I'd love to see them try and make that claim.
Agreed, and also one might think that it would considerably weaken their case that they have waited so long to sue, if they now intend to argue that all the iPhones have infringed.
Kimchi is a dish best served cold...
Samsung is claiming on a patent for all the underlying wireless technology. They don't seem to care what features are actually in the iPhone 5, because their alleged condition for avoiding the suit is that Apple remove all mobile communications capability.
The mere fact that the iPhone exists at all is apparently why they're suing. What I don't know is why they haven't already sued for the first four generations of iPhone.
And it's still a frivolous suit, unless they want to now allege that companies making chips under license are not allow to sell them to Samsung's competitors. I'd love to see them try and make that claim.
Cost benefit relationship.
Apple sees Samsung now as a threat and are taking legal actions against them.
Samsung, is like fine then, I had all these pent up disappointment built up so I'll use them now. A hidden card of sort.
If I were Apple, I simply wouldn't even bother to launch in Korea. They have plenty of other markets who want their products. I feel bad for all the Koreans who want an iPhone 5, but if your corporations are going to act childish...
I don't think Koreans would agree with your implication that Samsung is "their" corporation. Do Americans think Berkshire Hathaway is their corporation?
Kinda reminds me of the Soccer World Cup that was co-hosted there... There was this allegedly rigged match...
Yeah, I know which match you're talking about. But if you go back and rewatch the game, you'll see that the opposing team blew away a lot of easy chances. I mean instances when it was just the striker VS the S. Korean goalie and no defender in sight. Oh, the goalkeeper didn't even have to break into a sweat because the ball sailed over the goal post in one case.
Samsung is claiming on a patent for all the underlying wireless technology. They don't seem to care what features are actually in the iPhone 5, because their alleged condition for avoiding the suit is that Apple remove all mobile communications capability.
The mere fact that the iPhone exists at all is apparently why they're suing. What I don't know is why they haven't already sued for the first four generations of iPhone.
And it's still a frivolous suit, unless they want to now allege that companies making chips under license are not allow to sell them to Samsung's competitors. I'd love to see them try and make that claim.
Actually Samsung isn't currently making any "underlying wireless" claims against the iPhone. The entire article is based on the reporting of a rumor, no matter that the headline would imply that it's a fact. It's posted just to get Apple-nation riled up and in battle-mode IMHO. Rally the troops and all that.
Now, this nonsense about people being confused really is being taken to the extreme. No one is going to confuse a Samsung tablet with an Apple iPad. The branding alone makes it very clear what the devices are and who makes them. This applies to phones as well.
Talk to people who sell these phones. I did this over the weekend after reading an article last week. The customers are not THAT stupid. They know what an iPhone and iPad is and they know the difference between Apple products and Samsung products.
The time and money wasted on this superfluous nonsense is getting in the way of actually producing products.
I agree. I tinkered with my brother-in-law's Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 (the one banned in Germany) and visually it is different from iPads. Hardware-wise, I think the Galaxy Tab is on par with the iPad 2. Very fast. Response time very good. So I asked my bro-in-law how he likes it. He says he only uses it for web surfing.