Samsung vows to step up legal action against Apple for 'free riding' on its inventions

1235711

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 215
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LunarMoon View Post


    Samsung CEO failed the basic jobs of being a CEO.



    As a CEO one of his main jobs is damage control. This is basic and the guy is burying Samsung in stupidity and this is how.



    This is not a matter of who is right or wrong. This is damage control or in other words, trying to come alive with less losses as possible.



    Samsung is not known exactly as a innovator, so, they have not a single strong patent to defend themselves. Apple on the other hand, is a strong innovator and has at least 300 patents just for the iphone and iPad. So, in court Samsung has very little chances of winning anything.



    These are the scenarios they had:



    1) Apple complained they were copying their stuff and asked for changes. This was previous to court action. At this time, they should have made changes. They missed their chance. This was the least loss case.



    2) Apple started a court action in the US. They should contact Apple and try to settle. Instead they pushed their luck and Apple started other actions in other countries, they retaliate in all countries, using phony arguments as "the tablet idea was created in a 1969 movie" and are losing in every country.



    3) Apple pissed, started to moving their processors, display, flash and memory orders from Samsung to Toshiba, Soc and other companies in Japan. Samsung is losing their major customer, Apple and a 7.8 billion dollar check every year.



    And the worst part of that for them is that Tim Cook is a master of the supplies and logistic. I am sure Cook's strategy will inflict maximum damages to Samsung in all fronts, without causing any trouble for idevices production.



    Resuming: instead of making some changes to their hardware and software and keep Apple as a customer, losing a couple of dollars to do that, they decided to spank Apple and lose their 7.8 billion check and at the same time, send a message to the industry on how they treat their customers.



    Again, this is not a question of who is wrong or write, this is damage control.



    Nice job Samsung.



    while apple has many patents samsung have way more



    apple have changed some fundamentals regarding smart phones,but Samsung did too

    and when it comes to patents related to wireless standards (innovations ) Samsung have more than what apple have.
  • Reply 82 of 215
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by slapppy View Post


    Samsung sure feels as though they are right. Perhaps there may be some validity into what they are saying?



    The bottom line is it doesn't matter. Apple is stagnating. It used to be that apple held the top spots in phones, tablets, mp3 players, and pc's.



    Pc's in the 80s/90---obviously not now.



    mp3 players--still dominated by apple due to their simplistic nature.



    tablets---ipad2 losing fast--galaxy 7.7 is much much more attractive.



    phones--obviously not.



    Intelligent people don't like being told what they can and cannot do with the devices they own. That's always been apple's main problem. The control and guidance is good at the beginning of a device lineage, but ends up killing it off down the line. Apple paradoxically innovates. Unless it can find a new niche in the next 2-3 years, it's going to be downhill from here.
  • Reply 83 of 215
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LunarMoon View Post


    Samsung CEO failed the basic jobs of being a CEO.



    As a CEO one of his main jobs is damage control. This is basic and the guy is burying Samsung in stupidity and this is how.



    This is not a matter of who is right or wrong. This is damage control or in other words, trying to come alive with less losses as possible.

    ...

    Nice job Samsung.



    Nice summation. Apple sticks to their guns, Samsung acts defiant, arrogant and stupid. I hope Apple prevails and that Samsung pays the price.



    But this whole thing is part of the culture of moving production overseas to exploit cheap labor markets. Chinas MO for a long time now has been a tit for tat that calls for companys to transfer patent technology to them in exchange for both moving production facilities there and also to be able to sell to their enormous population. Even though we're talking about South Korea here, its a mindset thing and its much the same.



    Still looking forward to when Apple builds some of its own fabs in the US, even something token. Even if it's just their main contractor, HonHai, much as they did in Brazil. Not holding my breath though, I guess thats too old school now.
  • Reply 84 of 215
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by realitycheck69 View Post


    I think you will see that their "innovation" will not hold up in court--and it really doesn't matter. They are in the process of being surpassed by their counterparts. Apple is good at starting a trend or niche, not dominating (except in simple devices like mp3 players) due to their oppressive policies. People like freedom.



    Thanks for the perspective, but I think you will need some better thought out arguments to prevail around here.
  • Reply 85 of 215
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lamewing View Post


    Let people copy each other's designs. Why? Because then it truly comes down to who makes the best product. Even if they look the same



    Look and feel is a differentiator in defining a "better" product, particularly when technology is basically a commodity.



    If you spent years to design a new product offering that became wildly popular because it appealed to the masses because of it's bold, new design, you'd be a happy camper. How happy would you be if, a few months later, a competitor slavishly copied your design, adding his logo in place of yours, you might even be flattered ? if the product was not a cheap knock-off. But, how would you feel if it was a cheap knock-off that caused people to think that your product was also cheap?
  • Reply 86 of 215
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by realitycheck69 View Post


    The bottom line is it doesn't matter. Apple is stagnating. It used to be that apple held the top spots in phones, tablets, mp3 players, and pc's.



    Pc's in the 80s/90---obviously not now.



    mp3 players--still dominated by apple due to their simplistic nature.



    tablets---ipad2 losing fast--galaxy 7.7 is much much more attractive.



    phones--obviously not.



    Intelligent people don't like being told what they can and cannot do with the devices they own. That's always been apple's main problem. The control and guidance is good at the beginning of a device lineage, but ends up killing it off down the line. Apple paradoxically innovates. Unless it can find a new niche in the next 2-3 years, it's going to be downhill from here.



    Or to rephrase:



    Pc's in the 80s/90--- now the fastest growing PC sales.



    mp3 players--still dominated by apple by a huge margin.



    tablets---still dominated by Apple by a huge margin.



    phones--easily the best selling smartphone.



    Did I miss something?
  • Reply 87 of 215
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post




    Samsung has thousands of patents, but mostly pertain to manufacturing.



    Unfortunately for Samsung, these patents are useless against Apple, since Apple is not a manufacturer.




    How about the other patents, those that don't pertain to manufacturing? And are not encumbered with FRAND terms?
  • Reply 88 of 215
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cliffjumper68 View Post


    When Apple threw the match to stop other manufacturers making products it started the patent wars. Problem is even for how awesome the iphone is it is only 4 years old, these competitors have been at this for far longer with deeper patents. It made since for samsung to not go after apple too hard when it was a supplier, but with apple moving away and becoming so aggressive it is now time to change stance. Style, form factor, layout; all these elements can be found in various competitors long before apple sold a single phone. Palm essentially had all three since the early 90's, and motorola was not far behind, in the end apple is waging a war not protecting its rights. Love apple products, hate apple strategy.



    Actually, the "match", as you put it, was thrown by Google. It took advantage of a loophole in patent law whereby an individual (presumably including corporate individuals) can make a copy of a patented product for their own personal use without paying a license fee to the patent holder. It blatantly copied Apple's proprietary work, and the proprietary work of others, then disseminated it as "Android" for free.



    The rest, as they say, is history.



    What's really sad is that so many see Google as blameless or even heroic in all this, when clearly they have benefitted from their actions, and just as clearly that was their intent. They dodged around their moral responsibility to recompense the owner of a property for use of their property. They are morally bankrupt, as are those who benefit frrom their actions at Apple's expense.
  • Reply 89 of 215
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


    Did I miss something?



    The part where that guy really, REALLY needs to follow his username.
  • Reply 90 of 215
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


    Or to rephrase:



    Pc's in the 80s/90--- now the fastest growing PC sales.



    mp3 players--still dominated by apple by a huge margin.



    tablets---still dominated by Apple by a huge margin.



    phones--easily the best selling smartphone.



    Did I miss something?



    There's a difference between you and I.



    I am forward-looking.
  • Reply 91 of 215
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by d-range View Post




    The more chips you produce with the exact same design, the better you get at it, lowering costs and increasing margins. A customer like Apple really is the dream of any fondry: they need millions of chips using the exact same design, for an extended and predictable period of around 2 years. There really isn't a single foundry in the world who would turn down the kind of business Apple brings in, no way in the world.






    This whole line of reasoning assumes that Apple pays a lot for chips, compared to other chip buyers. I have seen reports to the contrary.



    Other than the general principle that big orders are better than small orders, do you have any data showing that Samsung makes better profits (more in an absolute sense, more %, more $/unit of risk, whatever relevant metric you can cite) from Apple compared to other chip buyers?
  • Reply 92 of 215
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by realitycheck69 View Post


    I am forward-looking.



    Do the kids have a new definition for 'forward' of which I'm unaware?
  • Reply 93 of 215
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by realitycheck69 View Post


    There's a difference between you and I.



    I am forward-looking.



    I'm sure you are, in your own mind. Such as that is....
  • Reply 94 of 215
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by realitycheck69 View Post


    There's a difference between you and I.



    I am forward-looking.



    I think you may be confusing forward-looking with hallucinating, but don't let that stop you. Many geniuses were ridiculed at first.
  • Reply 95 of 215
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,521member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post


    There is a simpler solution if that was the case.



    Just say no. Its not like they are forced to manufacture for Apple.



    Apple negotiates long term guaranteed deals with its suppliers. So actually, it IS like they are forced to manufacture for Apple, at least until the expiration of the agreed upon period. Perhaps Samsung is hoping to encourage Apple to terminate early. (Apple often has an "I can terminate early for just about any reason but you can't" clause. Not very fair, mind you, but it's good to be King.)



    Nevertheless, I agree with your message: this seems like a particularly bad reason to sue. There are ways to move forward to protect your $7.8 B revenue while you begin to replace it gradually. The nuclear option just doesn't seem smart.



    Thompson
  • Reply 96 of 215
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,356member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    Thanks for making my point. I guess you have never seen a Rolex knock off. It's hard to tell the difference ... Oh and they are illegal.



    The discussion we had about Timex and Rolex got me thinking further about premium brands in general. I can't imagine any scenario where Lexus would acknowledge any Hyundai as being a copy of one of their vehicles. Nor can I see Rolex ever stating that some Timex was a close copy of their high quality and respected timepieces. As far as Rolex and Lexus are concerned publicly, other non-premium companies (ie. Timex or Hyundai) aren't capable of building either a Rolex or Lexus. To give even a second thought would be ridiculous to their marketing arms.



    If Apple wants to be a premium supplier of electronics, they should act like it. Instead they give Samsung acknowledgement that yes, they've built a tablet or phone that's just like an iPhone/iPad ("copyist"). So if's it's less expensive or the comparable Apple product isn't available or lacks some specific feature they might want, Samsung's product will do just as well, thank you. It's a copy. Even Apple says so.



    Giving support to your competitor's claims of being just as good is an amateurish marketing mistake IMHO. No other premium producer would give any recognition to an upstart competitor. Apple should take their own advice: If you don't have an iPhone, well, you don't have an iPhone. Apple had no competition for their premium products until they started giving props to them with "copyist" suits. That's Apples big mistake and why they never should have started this IMHO.



    If they want to be considered premium and unmatchable, don't give mixed messages by acknowledging the competition's product is pretty much the same as yours.
  • Reply 97 of 215
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Hmmm. . . Not sure that's a great talking point.



    I see how you twisted what I said around to serve your anti-Apple bias, but otherwise I'm not really sure what you're getting at.
  • Reply 98 of 215
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,397member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JackTheRat View Post


    AAPL, just buy Samsung and S.Korea.



    With the loose change buy the North...



    Actually, looking at world trends, it's the Asian powers who may buy our companies and the US. China alone already has the Treasury by the short hairs.....



    Edit/update: On the other hand... THIS article is (statistically and visually) impressive....

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


    Apple sues HTC over auto hyperlinking text in emails? "Good. Serves them right for competing against Apple using Android in a manner that could never be confused with iOS"



    Anyone sues Apple? "Losers, cheap Asians. All Asians are cheap. Ban Asia."



    It's humorous mostly.



    In a tragicomic kind of way. There was an alternate future once in which Apple was not only as successful as it has been, but also still had a substantial portion of its parts and products being made in this country.



    but "...roads diverged... ...and that has made all the difference."



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post


    The term "flak" as applied to PR comes to mind.



    I believe that'd be a "PR Flack"

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    I love my iPhones, iPods, iPads and Macs, but the truth is Apple doesn't generally have a healthy respect for trademarks and copyrights. They assume they can buy the owners off ... often after the fact. Sometimes, they simply assume small businesses would not have the wherewithal to sue.



    Just because I love my wife does not mean her farts don't stink. Just because I love Apple products doesn't mean I respect all their actions.



    Indeed.
  • Reply 99 of 215
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Actually I have. In fact my younger brother is a recognized national expert in Rolex certification FWIW. And he doesn't base his decision on whether it's round, thin, small bezel and single button. Those are common and expected traits and not what makes a Rolex unique.



    You're just going to resist getting this forever, aren't you.



    There wasn't one manufacturer making a watch that looked like a Rolex watch before they were produced. After Rolex watches were produced identical looking knock-offs began to appear. They looked identical to a Rolex watch... but they were not a Rolex watch.



    Now... put the word Apple iPad in place of Rolex watch in the above paragraph (and, yes, put tablet where the first word "watch" appears).



    Simple, eh.
  • Reply 100 of 215
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


    You're just going to resist getting this forever, aren't you.



    There wasn't one manufacturer making a watch that looked like a Rolex watch before they were produced. After Rolex watches were produced identical looking knock-offs began to appear. They looked identical to a Rolex watch... but they were not a Rolex watch.



    Now... put the word Apple iPad in place of Rolex watch in the above paragraph (and, yes, put tablet where the first word "watch" appears).



    Simple, eh.



    For your analogy to work, the Galaxy Tab has to resemble the iPad so much that customers cannot distinguish them. Even Apple is not arguing that. Rolex fakes, on the other hand, are made to look identical the genuine article.
Sign In or Register to comment.