Hah now I see the anti-Apple brigade is smearing the jury foreman for being biased and that the patent he was granted should never have been granted because of "prior art". And of course they think Sammy will win on appeal. I think it's quite disgusting to smear someone just because you don't agree with the decision they came to.
What I find hypocritical is the same people arguing these jurors couldn't possibly understand patents and patent law are the first ones to claim this guys patent shouldn't have been granted.
Perhaps other OEM's like Nokia and HTC are privately pleased with this outcome. They've been impacted by Samsung as much if not more so than the iPhone.
And let's face it all the love for Samsung from the fandroids and anti-Apple brigade is not down to superior product (I'm sure many if they were honest would rate One X more highly than Galaxy S III) but the fact that Samsung has set their sights on one company: Apple.
And a lot of that comes down a small, vocal minority which believes that "control" is the very worst thing in the world and that anything that bloodies Apple's nose is a victory for "openness."
I mean, at this point they probably barely think it through, since this attitude is encrusted in layers of generational Apple animosity, sort of like the unconsidered politics of resentment. So you get a heady admixture of Apple making "toys" for "non-tech savy" "elitists" and "posers" who value "style over functionality" and so are willing to "pay the Apple tax" because they are "sheep" who crave Apple's "walled garden" which is jealously guarded by "control freaks" and "fascists" who want to "stifle innovation" and thus are determined to "litigate instead of compete."
The implicit and rarely spoken corollary is that therefore purchasing, say, one or another Galaxy phones makes the buyer an independent minded tech whiz who stands for freedom.
All of that falls apart under the slightest scrutiny, of course, as you notice that owning an Android handset puts you in with the crowd, Google is entirely closed in any area they actually make money, and that Android's vaunted "openness" devolves, in practice, to little more than customizable widgets and the opportunity to dick around with OS processes in the manner of a bored sailor working his scrimshaw.
But all of that goes into the lizard brain and expresses as "Screw Apple." And from there to the comments on every tech blog on the internet, wherein you'd imagine that Apple had publicly declared themselves to be planning forced reeducation camps and the snuffing out of joy.
But, as I say, that's actually a vocal minority. Most Android users, I'd dare to wager, are simply using the phone they were told to buy when they went to the store. On account of being so tech savvy and independent minded.
But even after all that are Samsung going to be better off than say HTC who profited by $350 million for the 2nd calendar quarter? I think everyone else is losing money per quarter as an Android-based vendor. Did Samsung learn anything from their slavish copying that can attribute to original products going forward? Things like fit and finish or industrial design? It's looking to me that their stealing will pay off for them when you consider all variables.
Yeah, but...
I am a great believer that what goes around, comes around...
Going forward, Sammy will have to compete on an equal playing field with other iPhone competitors. The advantages they gained were sales volume and economies of scale == profit. The advantages they lost were innovation and invention.
While Sammy may be the biggest, they may be the least able to to compete as they have little ability to differentiate themselves or their products.
Hah now I see the anti-Apple brigade is smearing the jury foreman for being biased and that the patent he was granted should never have been granted because of "prior art". And of course they think Sammy will win on appeal. I think it's quite disgusting to smear someone just because you don't agree with the decision they came to.
What I find hypocritical is the same people arguing these jurors couldn't possibly understand patents and patent law are the first ones to claim this guys patent shouldn't have been granted.
22 days of profit for Samsung mobile division to be exact
A month's worth of business days? That isn't trivial. For a company the size of Samsung, it isn't threatening, nor was it meant to be, but it IS still painful...
It WILL be trivial AND mostly meaningless if they're allowed to continue selling the infringing products however. The fine needs to be coupled with an injunction, in my view. Then it's meaningful.
I am a great believer that what goes around, comes around...
Going forward, Sammy will have to compete on an equal playing field with other iPhone competitors. The advantages they gained were sales volume and economies of scale == profit. The advantages they lost were innovation and invention.
While Sammy may be the biggest, they may be the least able to to compete as they have little ability to differentiate themselves or their products.
I don't have such an idealistic vision. I don't think there is some cosmic 1:1 ratio (i.e.: karma) that will make Samsung lose in value what they've gained by their actions. I don't see how they are at a level playing field HTC, Moto, et al. now they this court case is over. I don't see their S III infringing (was that part of the case? Is is now banned?) yet I see all that effort in copying Apple having a great potential to have taught Samsung a great deal about fit and finish and industrial design that the other Android-based vendors still can't compete with. Every angle I look at this I see Samsung a being far ahead of their Android competitors and wonder if they would have been ahead if not for the anti-competive actions.
Just look at the car industry, have you ever seen a truly original gorgeous design come out of any of the Asian manufactures? Maybe one or two, but the rest seem to borrow most of the design cues from western companies.
The auto industry is a poor example here. There haven't been any original or new designs for cars since about 1934 or so.
If by "design" you mean aesthetics and appearance, then yes, there are new designs every year. If you mean design in the sense that the iPhone is a new product design, then there haven't been any "new" car designs for many decades. At least none that have caught on, or sold or been designed by any of the mainstream car companies.
The new electric cars (and the hybrids, but they are a dead end really), are pretty much the only things that could be called "new designs" and they really only replace the powerplant with a different source and are thus a long way from anything revolutionary or new.
You should read the review on androidpolice website, it fairly positive, but points out many simple faults that could have been corrected/redesigned.
The problem I feel is that the Asian culture does not have the right tools to create world design. Maybe it's something about western culture having such depth and breadth that makes our manufactures world beaters.
Just look at the car industry, have you ever seen a truly original gorgeous design come out of any of the Asian manufactures? Maybe one or two, but the rest seem to borrow most of the design cues from western companies.
I don't have such an idealistic vision. I don't think there is some cosmic 1:1 ratio (i.e.: karma) that will make Samsung lose in value what they've gained by their actions. ...
Indeed. The concept of karma is very popular among "techies" in that it has connections to buddhism and is generally viewed as something to believe in that is "not religion." In fact, it's just magical thinking and closer to superstition than even regular religion is. It's pure nonsense.
If you believe in Karma, you might as well avoid black cats as well and throw salt over your shoulder when you spill it.
For instance, what is the moral fault of the dinosaurs that meant that the only possible karmic response by the universe was to wipe them out? Were they all cheating at cards for millions of years?
Great Victory for Apple , not because of damage award surely. 1 billion dollar is 15 days of Samsung's profit (or 22 days of Samsung Mobile division profit) or 8 days of Apple's. However large it may seem (unless it gets tripled, in which case it would one and half month of Samsung;s profit), it is still a slap on the wrist, probably a tighter one.
Samsung played their game, took calculated risks, and are now the most profitable handset manufacturer after Apple, their mobile division seems set to earn more than 15 billion dollar alone current year. In larger context it appears best investment they made. Spending a billion dollar and securing tens of billions of dollars of profit each year. And now they can safely move away from Apple designs ( like S3) and still be profitable. They have earned mind share and stature enough to reap in gold aleast for few years even without any breakthrough designs and products.
And that's exactly the injustice of the entire process.
Samsung came from no where to the #1 smart phone manufacturer in the world and are making billions in profits with their blatant copying being a large part of the reason for their success. As you mentioned, they have now built a position where they can stop making knock-offs (and as I've pointed out for weeks, the S3 shows that they're capable of making something that's not a slavish copy). Not only do they get to keep 95% of the ill-gotten profits, but they've now created a market position that will allow them to make many billions more in the future without being sued.
The judgment should have been at least 10 times as large.
You may be right... but the judicial system can't rule on anticipated or future issues... only actual past issues.
You, also, may be right that the S3 shows that Sammy can make something that is different enough from the current phones as not to be a slavish copy.
You are right that Sammy has gained market position, profits (and economies of scale).
So, Sammy is in an excellent position going forward -- some might say "sitting in the catbird seat".
Even more remarkable, Sammy has gained this position by copying Apple (and others) and creating or inventing little, or nothing, itself -- saving precious time and dollars in the process.
But, now the rules have changed... Sammy can't copy without fear of rapid injunctive relief on any new "copy". Sammy must, at least, spend the time and dollars to come up with a "non-slavish" copy of any incremental improvements by the competition.
But, what will happen when the next disruptive device (like the iPhone or iPad) arrives from Apple or some other competitor?
likely, it will not come from Sammy -- as creative [disruptive] invention is not in their DNA
Sammy will not be able to rapidly bring to market a "non-slavish" copy
if Sammy copies as in the past, the victim will, likely, get immediate injunctive relief
So, here Sammy sits with all this market capability and manufacturing capacity -- with nothing to use them for... they can only continue marketing and manufacturing today'a "non-slavish" copies.
For an entity that grows powerful by copying or stealing -- what happens when there is nothing left to copy or steal (or no practical way to do so)?
This may seem a little idealistic, but I believe that within the seeds of the success of companies like Sammy and Googy -- lies the seeds of their destruction, comeuppance, or at the very least the limit of their future growth.
Some of the reasons I am long on AAPL is that they are ethical, focused, creative and driven by excellence. They will not release a garbage product and are not afraid to disrupt their own successes.
Perhaps other OEM's like Nokia and HTC are privately pleased with this outcome. They've been impacted by Samsung as much if not more so than the iPhone.
And let's face it all the love for Samsung from the fandroids and anti-Apple brigade is not down to superior product (I'm sure many if they were honest would rate One X more highly than Galaxy S III) but the fact that Samsung has set their sights on one company: Apple.
And a lot of that comes down a small, vocal minority which believes that "control" is the very worst thing in the world and that anything that bloodies Apple's nose is a victory for "openness."
I mean, at this point they probably barely think it through, since this attitude is encrusted in layers of generational Apple animosity, sort of like the unconsidered politics of resentment. So you get a heady admixture of Apple making "toys" for "non-tech savy" "elitists" and "posers" who value "style over functionality" and so are willing to "pay the Apple tax" because they are "sheep" who crave Apple's "walled garden" which is jealously guarded by "control freaks" and "fascists" who want to "stifle innovation" and thus are determined to "litigate instead of compete."
The implicit and rarely spoken corollary is that therefore purchasing, say, one or another Galaxy phones makes the buyer an independent minded tech whiz who stands for freedom.
All of that falls apart under the slightest scrutiny, of course, as you notice that owning an Android handset puts you in with the crowd, Google is entirely closed in any area they actually make money, and that Android's vaunted "openness" devolves, in practice, to little more than customizable widgets and the opportunity to dick around with OS processes in the manner of a bored sailor working his scrimshaw.
But all of that goes into the lizard brain and expresses as "Screw Apple." And from there to the comments on every tech blog on the internet, wherein you'd imagine that Apple had publicly declared themselves to be planning forced reeducation camps and the snuffing out of joy.
But, as I say, that's actually a vocal minority. Most Android users, I'd dare to wager, are simply using the phone they were told to buy when they went to the store. On account of being so tech savvy and independent minded.
LOL!
Very well written (colorful) post and an enjoyable read.
And a lot of that comes down a small, vocal minority which believes that "control" is the very worst thing in the world and that anything that bloodies Apple's nose is a victory for "openness."
I mean, at this point they probably barely think it through, since this attitude is encrusted in layers of generational Apple animosity, sort of like the unconsidered politics of resentment. So you get a heady admixture of Apple making "toys" for "non-tech savy" "elitists" and "posers" who value "style over functionality" and so are willing to "pay the Apple tax" because they are "sheep" who crave Apple's "walled garden" which is jealously guarded by "control freaks" and "fascists" who want to "stifle innovation" and thus are determined to "litigate instead of compete."
I call this vocal minority the techblogistas. And they're very vocal. I was in the Apple section of a computer store and overheard some loud person telling the hapless salesperson how he liked Apple products but hated Apple the company. Reminds me of what happens daily on these forums: people show up here so they can vent how much they hate Apple and how much they hate fanboys.
And part of that is to claim that these are toys for the elite. This coming from people who get hard-ons for "l33t specs" is ironic, no?
I am a great believer that what goes around, comes around...
Going forward, Sammy will have to compete on an equal playing field with other iPhone competitors. The advantages they gained were sales volume and economies of scale == profit. The advantages they lost were innovation and invention.
While Sammy may be the biggest, they may be the least able to to compete as they have little ability to differentiate themselves or their products.
I don't have such an idealistic vision. I don't think there is some cosmic 1:1 ratio (i.e.: karma) that will make Samsung lose in value what they've gained by their actions. I don't see how they are at a level playing field HTC, Moto, et al. now they this court case is over. I don't see their S III infringing (was that part of the case? Is is now banned?) yet I see all that effort in copying Apple having a great potential to have taught Samsung a great deal about fit and finish and industrial design that the other Android-based vendors still can't compete with. Every angle I look at this I see Samsung a being far ahead of their Android competitors and wonder if they would have been ahead if not for the anti-competive actions.
Ahh... but you are limiting the playing field and karma to the existing world as we know it.
It was not too long ago when Microsoft ruled the roost in computer OS, productivity apps, and had a large success in mobile phones. I remember:
The mobile world changed in 2007. The PC world changed in 2010. When/what will be the next world change?
More succinctly, to what advantage is the marketing and manufacturing capability for buggy whips -- when the world is buying automobile cranks? Sammy has gained the pre-eminant position for today's buggy whips -- but lack the infrastructure for tomorrow's automobile cranks.
If I were to guess (SWAG, really), I would say the next world change is social* experience sharing in real-time or near real-time. I can't think of a good name for it, can't really describe it... but, like porn, I'll know it when I see it.
* I did not highlight "social" although I believe it will be the driving factor for consumers -- and that, in turn, will drive acceptance in enterprise for additional, non-social uses.
Watching TV in the family room is so passé -- as are posting to blogs or forums like AI; chatting or texting...
Come to think of it, TV as a one-to-many device is passé -- a tablet as amany-to-many device is a big part of experience sharing in real-time or near real-time. And, the tablet, as a personal TV, will largely cause the large screen to become a less-used niche product.
Edit: And tablets. with advanced cell radios, will break down the voice/messaging/data price structure of the telcos/cablecos -- it's all data, all the time!
Didn't Samsung's lawyers have jury consultants? Most people can be willing to forgive a slight whiff of greed if the company is otherwise has a good reputation. But nobody likes companies where it's beyond doubt that they're being greedy bastards. So why did Samsung bring this up when it should have been obvious to them that Intel's contract is an obvious defense, and that would prove that Samsung is trying to double-dip against Apple? That's like giving any jury that isn't paid Samsung shills a reason to hate them.
Because samsung like motorola later came back to intel (qualcomm with motorola) and told them that they were altering there legal contract with intel and excluding apple only from the contract. So in fact samsung was being a greedy bastard. They were trying to stifle competition by changing an already in-force contract. So that they could sue apple for infringement for those standards essential patents which are FRAND. Setting apple up to be sued ahead of time. Intel in samsungs case said no that its a legal contract and you can't do that. Qualcomm also said the same thing to motorola. The fact that samsung wanted 2.4% of all of the revenue from the full iDevice price for there royalties is ridiculous. The Jury in this case saw them for the anticompettative greedy lying bastards that they really are, and handed them there just deserts.
Indeed. The concept of karma is very popular among "techies" in that it has connections to buddhism and is generally viewed as something to believe in that is "not religion." In fact, it's just magical thinking and closer to superstition than even regular religion is. It's pure nonsense.
If you believe in Karma, you might as well avoid black cats as well and throw salt over your shoulder when you spill it.
For instance, what is the moral fault of the dinosaurs that meant that the only possible karmic response by the universe was to wipe them out? Were they all cheating at cards for millions of years?
Quite right.
There is NO natural justice.
There is however law enforced justice - Which Samsung shall learn from America (if nowhere else).
It's funny, before the verdict, I was criticising the jury system, and imagining 'ordinary' people would not understand the complexities of the case.
After two days of reading forum and news website posts, it seems they were an oasis of rational and right thinking, in a desert of stupidity and ignorance.
Did anyone catch Engadget's editorial on the verdict ?
Shocking opinions from adult professionals. (I would have expected better from them).
I agree that the totality of the evidence is irrefutable - Samsung clearly should have been found guilty. In fact, I felt that way the first time I laid eyes on the Galaxy S.
Having said this, I feel something is wrong when the jurors made up their minds after one day of trial. That's akin to a jury deciding a murder suspect is guilty after seeing gory pictures of blood and guts. I can't help but think that the right verdict emerged from a flawed process.
It was after the first day of deliberations, and not the first day of trial.
Ilagan told CNET the jury was convinced of Samsung's guilt after only one day of deliberations, noting that the seemingly fast verdict was carefully decided after weighing evidence presented by both parties.
We found for Apple because of the evidence they presented. It was clear there was infringement."
Foreman Hogan echoed the juror's sentiment, telling Reuters that video testimony from Samsung officials made it "absolutely" clear that the company willfully infringed on Apple's trade dress. He went on to say Apple's arguments for the protection of intellectual property factored largely into the jury's decision.
"We didn't want to give carte blanche to a company, by any name, to infringe someone else's intellectual property," Hogan said.
I may have missed it in all the Samsung "re-branding" being done by we clever posters, but after this clear verdict, the one that strikes home to me is "SameSong".......
If they were then they would not have the sales and profits they have had. People weren't buying Samsung's devices because the jury hadn't yet deliberated. They bought them for a multitude of reasons that are irrelevant to any bad press that Samsung has had for copying Apple's designs for years, and other vendors before that. This court case will not affect that in a meaningful way.
That's probably wrong. Most of their sales are likely taking place in China and India (and lower-income richer countries) where people still don't have the iPhone as a major choice in all key carriers. In places like the US, Samsung's smartphone share is nowhere near their global share. Moreover, even there, Apple didn't even get to Verizon and Sprint until a couple of years ago, by which time, people had bought into non-Apple smartphones. A lot of their current share is simply inertial and/or contract-bound.
Let's see in a couple of years. The real test -- as I've said many times before in this forum -- will be when the iPhone makes it to China Mobile. I am willing to bet that Samsung's mobile division will be report its first quarterly loss.
Comments
What I find hypocritical is the same people arguing these jurors couldn't possibly understand patents and patent law are the first ones to claim this guys patent shouldn't have been granted.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/apple-v-samsung-juror-describes-deliberations-we-wanted-to-send-a-message/?comments=1&start=40#unread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Perhaps other OEM's like Nokia and HTC are privately pleased with this outcome. They've been impacted by Samsung as much if not more so than the iPhone.
And let's face it all the love for Samsung from the fandroids and anti-Apple brigade is not down to superior product (I'm sure many if they were honest would rate One X more highly than Galaxy S III) but the fact that Samsung has set their sights on one company: Apple.
And a lot of that comes down a small, vocal minority which believes that "control" is the very worst thing in the world and that anything that bloodies Apple's nose is a victory for "openness."
I mean, at this point they probably barely think it through, since this attitude is encrusted in layers of generational Apple animosity, sort of like the unconsidered politics of resentment. So you get a heady admixture of Apple making "toys" for "non-tech savy" "elitists" and "posers" who value "style over functionality" and so are willing to "pay the Apple tax" because they are "sheep" who crave Apple's "walled garden" which is jealously guarded by "control freaks" and "fascists" who want to "stifle innovation" and thus are determined to "litigate instead of compete."
The implicit and rarely spoken corollary is that therefore purchasing, say, one or another Galaxy phones makes the buyer an independent minded tech whiz who stands for freedom.
All of that falls apart under the slightest scrutiny, of course, as you notice that owning an Android handset puts you in with the crowd, Google is entirely closed in any area they actually make money, and that Android's vaunted "openness" devolves, in practice, to little more than customizable widgets and the opportunity to dick around with OS processes in the manner of a bored sailor working his scrimshaw.
But all of that goes into the lizard brain and expresses as "Screw Apple." And from there to the comments on every tech blog on the internet, wherein you'd imagine that Apple had publicly declared themselves to be planning forced reeducation camps and the snuffing out of joy.
But, as I say, that's actually a vocal minority. Most Android users, I'd dare to wager, are simply using the phone they were told to buy when they went to the store. On account of being so tech savvy and independent minded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Yes, until it faces the injunction.
But even after all that are Samsung going to be better off than say HTC who profited by $350 million for the 2nd calendar quarter? I think everyone else is losing money per quarter as an Android-based vendor. Did Samsung learn anything from their slavish copying that can attribute to original products going forward? Things like fit and finish or industrial design? It's looking to me that their stealing will pay off for them when you consider all variables.
Yeah, but...
I am a great believer that what goes around, comes around...
Going forward, Sammy will have to compete on an equal playing field with other iPhone competitors. The advantages they gained were sales volume and economies of scale == profit. The advantages they lost were innovation and invention.
While Sammy may be the biggest, they may be the least able to to compete as they have little ability to differentiate themselves or their products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuffyzDead
Another Extremely Obvious Observation,...from the outside ...not from this Jury's vantaged perception.
If Samsung never COPIED,
they would be in the EXACT SAME BOAT as RIM, HTC, NOKIA, LG, MOTOROLA, and now SAMSUNG, are today.
In other words, it's OBVIOUS that Samsung is having sales success
Unlike, RIM, HTC, NOKIA, LG, MOTOROLA, ...and others.
Their the only company with some level of success
BUT
that success was SOLELY dependent on their COPYING APPLE.
That pretty much sums it up, yep...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Hah now I see the anti-Apple brigade is smearing the jury foreman for being biased and that the patent he was granted should never have been granted because of "prior art". And of course they think Sammy will win on appeal. I think it's quite disgusting to smear someone just because you don't agree with the decision they came to.
What I find hypocritical is the same people arguing these jurors couldn't possibly understand patents and patent law are the first ones to claim this guys patent shouldn't have been granted.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/apple-v-samsung-juror-describes-deliberations-we-wanted-to-send-a-message/?comments=1&start=40#unread
I think Aesop referred to it as "Sour Grapes"… ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by simpleankit
22 days of profit for Samsung mobile division to be exact
A month's worth of business days? That isn't trivial. For a company the size of Samsung, it isn't threatening, nor was it meant to be, but it IS still painful...
It WILL be trivial AND mostly meaningless if they're allowed to continue selling the infringing products however. The fine needs to be coupled with an injunction, in my view. Then it's meaningful.
We'll see what happens...
I don't have such an idealistic vision. I don't think there is some cosmic 1:1 ratio (i.e.: karma) that will make Samsung lose in value what they've gained by their actions. I don't see how they are at a level playing field HTC, Moto, et al. now they this court case is over. I don't see their S III infringing (was that part of the case? Is is now banned?) yet I see all that effort in copying Apple having a great potential to have taught Samsung a great deal about fit and finish and industrial design that the other Android-based vendors still can't compete with. Every angle I look at this I see Samsung a being far ahead of their Android competitors and wonder if they would have been ahead if not for the anti-competive actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodbine
...
Just look at the car industry, have you ever seen a truly original gorgeous design come out of any of the Asian manufactures? Maybe one or two, but the rest seem to borrow most of the design cues from western companies.
The auto industry is a poor example here. There haven't been any original or new designs for cars since about 1934 or so.
If by "design" you mean aesthetics and appearance, then yes, there are new designs every year. If you mean design in the sense that the iPhone is a new product design, then there haven't been any "new" car designs for many decades. At least none that have caught on, or sold or been designed by any of the mainstream car companies.
The new electric cars (and the hybrids, but they are a dead end really), are pretty much the only things that could be called "new designs" and they really only replace the powerplant with a different source and are thus a long way from anything revolutionary or new.
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodbine
You should read the review on androidpolice website, it fairly positive, but points out many simple faults that could have been corrected/redesigned.
The problem I feel is that the Asian culture does not have the right tools to create world design. Maybe it's something about western culture having such depth and breadth that makes our manufactures world beaters.
Just look at the car industry, have you ever seen a truly original gorgeous design come out of any of the Asian manufactures? Maybe one or two, but the rest seem to borrow most of the design cues from western companies.
toyota
honda
Nissan
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I don't have such an idealistic vision. I don't think there is some cosmic 1:1 ratio (i.e.: karma) that will make Samsung lose in value what they've gained by their actions. ...
Indeed. The concept of karma is very popular among "techies" in that it has connections to buddhism and is generally viewed as something to believe in that is "not religion." In fact, it's just magical thinking and closer to superstition than even regular religion is. It's pure nonsense.
If you believe in Karma, you might as well avoid black cats as well and throw salt over your shoulder when you spill it.
For instance, what is the moral fault of the dinosaurs that meant that the only possible karmic response by the universe was to wipe them out? Were they all cheating at cards for millions of years?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Quote:
Originally Posted by simpleankit
Great Victory for Apple , not because of damage award surely. 1 billion dollar is 15 days of Samsung's profit (or 22 days of Samsung Mobile division profit) or 8 days of Apple's. However large it may seem (unless it gets tripled, in which case it would one and half month of Samsung;s profit), it is still a slap on the wrist, probably a tighter one.
Samsung played their game, took calculated risks, and are now the most profitable handset manufacturer after Apple, their mobile division seems set to earn more than 15 billion dollar alone current year. In larger context it appears best investment they made. Spending a billion dollar and securing tens of billions of dollars of profit each year. And now they can safely move away from Apple designs ( like S3) and still be profitable. They have earned mind share and stature enough to reap in gold aleast for few years even without any breakthrough designs and products.
And that's exactly the injustice of the entire process.
Samsung came from no where to the #1 smart phone manufacturer in the world and are making billions in profits with their blatant copying being a large part of the reason for their success. As you mentioned, they have now built a position where they can stop making knock-offs (and as I've pointed out for weeks, the S3 shows that they're capable of making something that's not a slavish copy). Not only do they get to keep 95% of the ill-gotten profits, but they've now created a market position that will allow them to make many billions more in the future without being sued.
The judgment should have been at least 10 times as large.
You may be right... but the judicial system can't rule on anticipated or future issues... only actual past issues.
You, also, may be right that the S3 shows that Sammy can make something that is different enough from the current phones as not to be a slavish copy.
You are right that Sammy has gained market position, profits (and economies of scale).
So, Sammy is in an excellent position going forward -- some might say "sitting in the catbird seat".
Even more remarkable, Sammy has gained this position by copying Apple (and others) and creating or inventing little, or nothing, itself -- saving precious time and dollars in the process.
But, now the rules have changed... Sammy can't copy without fear of rapid injunctive relief on any new "copy". Sammy must, at least, spend the time and dollars to come up with a "non-slavish" copy of any incremental improvements by the competition.
But, what will happen when the next disruptive device (like the iPhone or iPad) arrives from Apple or some other competitor?
likely, it will not come from Sammy -- as creative [disruptive] invention is not in their DNA
Sammy will not be able to rapidly bring to market a "non-slavish" copy
if Sammy copies as in the past, the victim will, likely, get immediate injunctive relief
So, here Sammy sits with all this market capability and manufacturing capacity -- with nothing to use them for... they can only continue marketing and manufacturing today'a "non-slavish" copies.
For an entity that grows powerful by copying or stealing -- what happens when there is nothing left to copy or steal (or no practical way to do so)?
This may seem a little idealistic, but I believe that within the seeds of the success of companies like Sammy and Googy -- lies the seeds of their destruction, comeuppance, or at the very least the limit of their future growth.
Some of the reasons I am long on AAPL is that they are ethical, focused, creative and driven by excellence. They will not release a garbage product and are not afraid to disrupt their own successes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Perhaps other OEM's like Nokia and HTC are privately pleased with this outcome. They've been impacted by Samsung as much if not more so than the iPhone.
And let's face it all the love for Samsung from the fandroids and anti-Apple brigade is not down to superior product (I'm sure many if they were honest would rate One X more highly than Galaxy S III) but the fact that Samsung has set their sights on one company: Apple.
And a lot of that comes down a small, vocal minority which believes that "control" is the very worst thing in the world and that anything that bloodies Apple's nose is a victory for "openness."
I mean, at this point they probably barely think it through, since this attitude is encrusted in layers of generational Apple animosity, sort of like the unconsidered politics of resentment. So you get a heady admixture of Apple making "toys" for "non-tech savy" "elitists" and "posers" who value "style over functionality" and so are willing to "pay the Apple tax" because they are "sheep" who crave Apple's "walled garden" which is jealously guarded by "control freaks" and "fascists" who want to "stifle innovation" and thus are determined to "litigate instead of compete."
The implicit and rarely spoken corollary is that therefore purchasing, say, one or another Galaxy phones makes the buyer an independent minded tech whiz who stands for freedom.
All of that falls apart under the slightest scrutiny, of course, as you notice that owning an Android handset puts you in with the crowd, Google is entirely closed in any area they actually make money, and that Android's vaunted "openness" devolves, in practice, to little more than customizable widgets and the opportunity to dick around with OS processes in the manner of a bored sailor working his scrimshaw.
But all of that goes into the lizard brain and expresses as "Screw Apple." And from there to the comments on every tech blog on the internet, wherein you'd imagine that Apple had publicly declared themselves to be planning forced reeducation camps and the snuffing out of joy.
But, as I say, that's actually a vocal minority. Most Android users, I'd dare to wager, are simply using the phone they were told to buy when they went to the store. On account of being so tech savvy and independent minded.
LOL!
Very well written (colorful) post and an enjoyable read.
Kinda' like a Seinfield skit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
And a lot of that comes down a small, vocal minority which believes that "control" is the very worst thing in the world and that anything that bloodies Apple's nose is a victory for "openness."
I mean, at this point they probably barely think it through, since this attitude is encrusted in layers of generational Apple animosity, sort of like the unconsidered politics of resentment. So you get a heady admixture of Apple making "toys" for "non-tech savy" "elitists" and "posers" who value "style over functionality" and so are willing to "pay the Apple tax" because they are "sheep" who crave Apple's "walled garden" which is jealously guarded by "control freaks" and "fascists" who want to "stifle innovation" and thus are determined to "litigate instead of compete."
I call this vocal minority the techblogistas. And they're very vocal. I was in the Apple section of a computer store and overheard some loud person telling the hapless salesperson how he liked Apple products but hated Apple the company. Reminds me of what happens daily on these forums: people show up here so they can vent how much they hate Apple and how much they hate fanboys.
And part of that is to claim that these are toys for the elite. This coming from people who get hard-ons for "l33t specs" is ironic, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Yeah, but...
I am a great believer that what goes around, comes around...
Going forward, Sammy will have to compete on an equal playing field with other iPhone competitors. The advantages they gained were sales volume and economies of scale == profit. The advantages they lost were innovation and invention.
While Sammy may be the biggest, they may be the least able to to compete as they have little ability to differentiate themselves or their products.
I don't have such an idealistic vision. I don't think there is some cosmic 1:1 ratio (i.e.: karma) that will make Samsung lose in value what they've gained by their actions. I don't see how they are at a level playing field HTC, Moto, et al. now they this court case is over. I don't see their S III infringing (was that part of the case? Is is now banned?) yet I see all that effort in copying Apple having a great potential to have taught Samsung a great deal about fit and finish and industrial design that the other Android-based vendors still can't compete with. Every angle I look at this I see Samsung a being far ahead of their Android competitors and wonder if they would have been ahead if not for the anti-competive actions.
Ahh... but you are limiting the playing field and karma to the existing world as we know it.
It was not too long ago when Microsoft ruled the roost in computer OS, productivity apps, and had a large success in mobile phones. I remember:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U
AI won't accept the video link.
The mobile world changed in 2007. The PC world changed in 2010. When/what will be the next world change?
More succinctly, to what advantage is the marketing and manufacturing capability for buggy whips -- when the world is buying automobile cranks? Sammy has gained the pre-eminant position for today's buggy whips -- but lack the infrastructure for tomorrow's automobile cranks.
If I were to guess (SWAG, really), I would say the next world change is social* experience sharing in real-time or near real-time. I can't think of a good name for it, can't really describe it... but, like porn, I'll know it when I see it.
* I did not highlight "social" although I believe it will be the driving factor for consumers -- and that, in turn, will drive acceptance in enterprise for additional, non-social uses.
Watching TV in the family room is so passé -- as are posting to blogs or forums like AI; chatting or texting...
Come to think of it, TV as a one-to-many device is passé -- a tablet as a many-to-many device is a big part of experience sharing in real-time or near real-time. And, the tablet, as a personal TV, will largely cause the large screen to become a less-used niche product.
Edit: And tablets. with advanced cell radios, will break down the voice/messaging/data price structure of the telcos/cablecos -- it's all data, all the time!
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman
Didn't Samsung's lawyers have jury consultants? Most people can be willing to forgive a slight whiff of greed if the company is otherwise has a good reputation. But nobody likes companies where it's beyond doubt that they're being greedy bastards. So why did Samsung bring this up when it should have been obvious to them that Intel's contract is an obvious defense, and that would prove that Samsung is trying to double-dip against Apple? That's like giving any jury that isn't paid Samsung shills a reason to hate them.
Because samsung like motorola later came back to intel (qualcomm with motorola) and told them that they were altering there legal contract with intel and excluding apple only from the contract. So in fact samsung was being a greedy bastard. They were trying to stifle competition by changing an already in-force contract. So that they could sue apple for infringement for those standards essential patents which are FRAND. Setting apple up to be sued ahead of time. Intel in samsungs case said no that its a legal contract and you can't do that. Qualcomm also said the same thing to motorola. The fact that samsung wanted 2.4% of all of the revenue from the full iDevice price for there royalties is ridiculous. The Jury in this case saw them for the anticompettative greedy lying bastards that they really are, and handed them there just deserts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Indeed. The concept of karma is very popular among "techies" in that it has connections to buddhism and is generally viewed as something to believe in that is "not religion." In fact, it's just magical thinking and closer to superstition than even regular religion is. It's pure nonsense.
If you believe in Karma, you might as well avoid black cats as well and throw salt over your shoulder when you spill it.
For instance, what is the moral fault of the dinosaurs that meant that the only possible karmic response by the universe was to wipe them out? Were they all cheating at cards for millions of years?
Quite right.
There is NO natural justice.
There is however law enforced justice - Which Samsung shall learn from America (if nowhere else).
It's funny, before the verdict, I was criticising the jury system, and imagining 'ordinary' people would not understand the complexities of the case.
After two days of reading forum and news website posts, it seems they were an oasis of rational and right thinking, in a desert of stupidity and ignorance.
Did anyone catch Engadget's editorial on the verdict ?
Shocking opinions from adult professionals. (I would have expected better from them).
It was after the first day of deliberations, and not the first day of trial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Ilagan told CNET the jury was convinced of Samsung's guilt after only one day of deliberations, noting that the seemingly fast verdict was carefully decided after weighing evidence presented by both parties.
We found for Apple because of the evidence they presented. It was clear there was infringement."
Foreman Hogan echoed the juror's sentiment, telling Reuters that video testimony from Samsung officials made it "absolutely" clear that the company willfully infringed on Apple's trade dress. He went on to say Apple's arguments for the protection of intellectual property factored largely into the jury's decision.
"We didn't want to give carte blanche to a company, by any name, to infringe someone else's intellectual property," Hogan said.
I may have missed it in all the Samsung "re-branding" being done by we clever posters, but after this clear verdict, the one that strikes home to me is "SameSong".......
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I find it hard to believe they marketed a portable phone as "brick". :D
Oh Im old enough to remember the original motorola brick
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That is what I mean by all variables.
If you meant all that specifically, great!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
If they were then they would not have the sales and profits they have had. People weren't buying Samsung's devices because the jury hadn't yet deliberated. They bought them for a multitude of reasons that are irrelevant to any bad press that Samsung has had for copying Apple's designs for years, and other vendors before that. This court case will not affect that in a meaningful way.
That's probably wrong. Most of their sales are likely taking place in China and India (and lower-income richer countries) where people still don't have the iPhone as a major choice in all key carriers. In places like the US, Samsung's smartphone share is nowhere near their global share. Moreover, even there, Apple didn't even get to Verizon and Sprint until a couple of years ago, by which time, people had bought into non-Apple smartphones. A lot of their current share is simply inertial and/or contract-bound.
Let's see in a couple of years. The real test -- as I've said many times before in this forum -- will be when the iPhone makes it to China Mobile. I am willing to bet that Samsung's mobile division will be report its first quarterly loss.