Apple seeks ban on sale of 8 Samsung smartphones

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 50
    Just eight models of Samsung's phones? That's like eight rain drops in the ocean.
  • Reply 22 of 50


    Banning these 8 products is meaningless, as Fortune noted. They are either obsolete or not the best selling phones. I guess Apple's real win comes from stamping the 'Copycat' image on Samsung's forehead. Apple should find a way to ban Samsung's popular products, like Galaxy S3 or Galaxy Note.

  • Reply 23 of 50


    Apple will keep putting out small lists of Android phones to be banned every couple of weeks to keep this in the public view. Why not drag it out and pull Samsung and other Android makers through the mud all year? They deserve it. The billion dollars in the patent case really means nothing. It's the power of the verdict and public perception that Apple has truly won. And they are going to milk it for all it's worth.

  • Reply 24 of 50
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    hellacool wrote: »

    People that have pride in themselves do not care what products they use as long as they fit the bill.  May want to work on your self esteem a little, sad.

    I may want to work on my pride because I own one of the best, most reliable, coolest handsets in the world, that fits the bill with me, has the widest range of high quality apps, is backed up by the best customer service, is updated frequently, often freely, while still holding excellent re-sales value, and is synchronised with a bevy of other high quality devices in not only the tablet and laptop categories, but many others as well? A device produced by people who want to make the best products in the world, have a history of innovation, and aren't just in it for the 'bottom line'?

    A device responsible for the creation of your handset of choice?

    My self-esteem and pride, Hellacool, is just fine.

    How's yours?

    (You can copy my level of self-esteem if you would like to)
  • Reply 25 of 50
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member
    charlituna wrote: »
    I was about to ask how many of the devices are actually still on sale.

    I don't believe they're manufacturing them anymore. What ever is still available is left over stock.
  • Reply 26 of 50
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member
    jragosta wrote: »
    That's nonsense.
    First, Samsung does still sell a lot of these phones. I would imagine that without an injunction, it's not hard to see them selling over a million S2s, for example (or half a billion dollars).
    Second, this sets Apple up for its other lawsuits - including the one against Samsung for some of their newer phones.
    Third, by taking all these phones off the market, Samsung will presumably have to reimburse resellers, costing them a significant amount of money.
    Fourth, it sends a message that Apple is going to enforce the court decision as much as they can. That's an important message for the industry to understand.
    What's the alternative? Completely ignore the court judgment and let Samsung continue to profit from their illegal actions? THAT would be absurd.

    But remember an injunction is only as good as those willing or able to enforce it.
  • Reply 27 of 50
    lamewinglamewing Posts: 742member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by logandigges View Post


    This is all really irrellavent. (I believe) The only device currently sold here is the SII's, and they aren't even that popular anymore.



    Exactly. In the last two weeks I have seen 13 new Samsung Galaxy SIII at work and at my board game group. These are selling like hotcakes (prefer my iPhone 4 and Galaxy Nexus, but it is a nice phone). This ban really isn't going to amount to a hill of beans since almost all the phones that were deemed infringing on patents and trade dress are legacy devices. 

  • Reply 28 of 50

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by logandigges View Post


    This is all really irrellavent. (I believe) The only device currently sold here is the SII's, and they aren't even that popular anymore.



     


    It is VERY relevant. It sends a clear message, and gets Samsung (and others) thinking long and hard about their *future* products. 


     


    Doesn't matter if this particular ban hardly affects Samsung. It's the symbolic first shot in what could be a future volley of very *materially real* injunctions against Samsung. 


     


    Warning shot. That's all this is. In fact, it's almost kind. Apple's doing them a favour. 



     


    The just concluded trial was like dropping a stone into a pond... now the ripples emanating from that spot will touch everything in their path...

  • Reply 29 of 50
    lamewinglamewing Posts: 742member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    It's not at all irrelevant. Just because a bank robber robbed a bank last year, that doesn't mean that you won't go after them. It's a matter of principle.


     


    I would say that it's more about damaging and hurting Samsung's reputation, and turning their brand name into crap. No brand wants to be associated with stealing, copying, thievery and a whole slew of banned products.


     


    And slightly off topic, but I ended up with two brand new Samsung devices today! image


     


    I went to exchange a couple of cable boxes which I had, and came home with two new Samsung boxes. I didn't have much of a choice in the matter.image



    He means the phone that could be banned is a legacy device and of little importance. It will be replace by newer devices that are not being banned. You really are drinking kool-aid if you think the average American consumer is going to give two licks about the supposed hit to Samsung's reputation. Samsung makes quality products, and that is all that matters. I have an iPhone 4, but I also own a Samsung Galaxy Nexus and a Samsung Focus. These lawsuits are not going to push people away from Samsung.

  • Reply 30 of 50

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Relic View Post



    The infringing product is the SII, you've seen it in Media Markt & Interdiscount for 350 CHF. Still a good deal, thank goodness we live in Switzerland where these corporate games aren't played as much. We can only sit, watch and shake our heads at the insanity.


     


    Haven't seen you for a while... Are you still in hospital, or at home?


     


    The "games" are necessary to protect your IP.

  • Reply 31 of 50

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Relic View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post



    And no other vendor wants a judge to tell them "Why didn't you pay attention to what happened to Samsung... don't waste my court's time!"



    Importantly, it lays out the fact that Apple does in fact seek enforcement of it's patents.    When Apple approaches other vendors, there will be no, "But they are singling US out... They didn't stop Samsung!"  The case law and the enforcement make the next judge overseeing an injunction much more likely to grant the injunction, and less likely overturned prior to trial.



    This is less thermonuclear and more Sherman's March to the Sea.  Apple will be burning towns and plantations to let the next City know resistence is futile.




    Apple makes good products but when any company becomes to large they always go after the world market and take no prisoners.


     


    Isn't that exactly what Sammy has accomplished by copying the IP of Apple and others?


     


    I have seen no signs of Apple using its size to compete unfairly.

  • Reply 32 of 50
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,484member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Relic View Post



    The infringing product is the SII, you've seen it in Media Markt & Interdiscount for 350 CHF. Still a good deal, thank goodness we live in Switzerland where these corporate games aren't played as much. We can only sit, watch and shake our heads at the insanity.


     


    It is insanity that Samsung stole so much but I would hardly called Apple defending itself a "corporate game."

  • Reply 33 of 50
    igrivigriv Posts: 1,177member


    Obviously if Apple really wanted to hurt Samsung, they would go after the Galaxy IIIS (which infringes as much as anything else).

  • Reply 34 of 50
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by igriv View Post

    Obviously if Apple really wanted to hurt Samsung, they would go after the Galaxy IIIS (which infringes as much as anything else).


     


    Obviously if you'd paid attention to the trial, you'd know it wasn't included therein.




    They'll need another lawsuit to take down the Galaxy S III. 

  • Reply 35 of 50
    igrivigriv Posts: 1,177member


    When I was in Germany a few months ago, I had to get a post-paid phone, and got a Samsung running Baidu (the OS Sammy developed in-house). A worse piece of garbage I have never seen, so they are wise to try to rip off other people's IP.

  • Reply 36 of 50
    igrivigriv Posts: 1,177member


    A billion dollars is still a lot of money, even for Apple, but obviously the real win is being able to shake down the Android makers for royalties going forward (Apple already makes something like $20-30 for each Android phone sold, at least in the US, doubling that would (a) bring in revenue, and (b) really hurt Android's market share, since Android covers largely the low end of the smart phone market, so the extra cost will really hurt.)

  • Reply 37 of 50
    igriv wrote: »
    A billion dollars is still a lot of money, even for Apple, but obviously the real win is being able to shake down the Android makers for royalties going forward (Apple already makes something like $20-30 for each Android phone sold, at least in the US, doubling that would (a) bring in revenue, and (b) really hurt Android's market share, since Android covers largely the low end of the smart phone market, so the extra cost will really hurt.)

    Citation please for:

    "Apple already makes something like $20-30 for each Android phone sold"
  • Reply 38 of 50


    Galaxy SIII not there - just need to survive till Nov 12 when my contract is up >.>

  • Reply 39 of 50

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by igriv View Post


    When I was in Germany a few months ago, I had to get a post-paid phone, and got a Samsung running Baidu (the OS Sammy developed in-house). A worse piece of garbage I have never seen, so they are wise to try to rip off other people's IP.



     


    My dad had one of the first Samsung iPhone clones, free with contract from AT&T. I don't recall the exactly model but it ran an early version of Android 1.x and rather poorly I might add. The touchscreen quit working on the right half of the screen before the end of his 2 year contract. He ditched it for an iPhone 4S. He swore off Samsung phones. I also had an old Samsung flip phone on contract from Sprint years ago, and that POS stopped receiving calls by the end of 2-years (calls went immediately to voicemail). For this reason, I will never recommend Samsung.

  • Reply 40 of 50
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member
    My dad had one of the first Samsung iPhone clones, free with contract from AT&T. I don't recall the exactly model but it ran an early version of Android 1.x and rather poorly I might add. The touchscreen quit working on the right half of the screen before the end of his 2 year contract. He ditched it for an iPhone 4S. He swore off Samsung phones. I also had an old Samsung flip phone on contract from Sprint years ago, and that POS stopped receiving calls by the end of 2-years (calls went immediately to voicemail). For this reason, I will never recommend Samsung.

    You do know that the screen on the iPhone 4S is made by Samsung?
Sign In or Register to comment.