Apple's monopolist behaviour the writing on the wall?
Apple Europe is trying to enforce through the courts that all Samsung Galaxy products be declared illegal and that stores have to take them off the shelves "or they will be engaging in illegal activities".
I.o.w. Apple not only threatens Samsung but also every single European store selling Samsung Galaxy products.
Here is a Babelfish translation of an article in today's Dutch internet magazine 'WebWereld' (WebWorld).
The headline translation is crummy. Should read "Apple wants entire Galaxy line off the shelves".
This is bona fide monopolist behaviour!
Not that it is going to bring Apple any direct results: the Dutch court's verdict won't be before October 25th. By then the whole of Europe will have been flooded with the Galaxy Tab 10.1. They started over the counter sales last Tuesday and there are queues!
Apple knows that too. So why are they pushing this so hard? Well, I wouldn't be surprised if it's strategic: that Apple is planning a take-over of Samsung Mobile* and is using this to drive the price down...
*Especially in the wake of Google's purchase of Motorola Mobility.
I.o.w. Apple not only threatens Samsung but also every single European store selling Samsung Galaxy products.
Here is a Babelfish translation of an article in today's Dutch internet magazine 'WebWereld' (WebWorld).
The headline translation is crummy. Should read "Apple wants entire Galaxy line off the shelves".
This is bona fide monopolist behaviour!
Not that it is going to bring Apple any direct results: the Dutch court's verdict won't be before October 25th. By then the whole of Europe will have been flooded with the Galaxy Tab 10.1. They started over the counter sales last Tuesday and there are queues!
Apple knows that too. So why are they pushing this so hard? Well, I wouldn't be surprised if it's strategic: that Apple is planning a take-over of Samsung Mobile* and is using this to drive the price down...
*Especially in the wake of Google's purchase of Motorola Mobility.
Comments
1 the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service : his likely motive was to protect his regional monopoly on furs.
? [usu. with negative ] the exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something : men don't have a monopoly on unrequited love.
? a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service : areas where cable companies operate as monopolies.
? a commodity or service controlled in this way : electricity, gas, and water were considered to be natural monopolies.
Apple's lawsuit is against Samsung for Patent infringement. Even if they had eradicated Samsung from the phone landscape there would still be plenty of other phone vendors to choose from hence the very antithesis of a monopoly.
Apple's behavior is not monopolistic but rather follow the process of patent litigation.
Apple's lawsuit is against Samsung for Patent infringement.
[...]
Apple's behavior is not monopolistic but rather follow the process of patent litigation.
That, sir, is Newspeak. And you know it.
That, sir, is Newspeak. And you know it.
Only took 179 posts to make you reveal yourself (in a wider spectrum) as a bearer of abject nonsense.
Well, it's better than most trolls, I guess.
Only took 179 posts to make you reveal yourself (in a wider spectrum) as a bearer of abject nonsense.
Well, it's better than most trolls, I guess.
How uncharacteristically complimentary! You had your tax return approved?
Apple's behavior is not monopolistic but rather follow the process of patent litigation.
Patents are monopolistic. A patent is a granting by the government to an individual for exclusive use of, or selling of products or services. History is full of Kings granting patents to individuals who then become rich because they are the only ones in the kingdom that can use or sell these products and services.
In this context patents are exclusive (monopolistic) grants by governments to inventors so that they can sell/use their inventions without worrying about competitors. In this case Apple was granted an European patent for the exclusive use of a feature, product and/or service that Samsung is now trying to use. Apple is objecting and is going to the government to enforce the exclusivity that the government has granted. If the government agrees with Apple that its patent is indeed valid, and that Samsung is in fact infringing, then the government will have to enforce the patents exclusiveness by banning the sell and distribution of Samsungs' infringing product.
Patents are monopolistic. A patent is a granting by the government to an individual for exclusive use of, or selling of products or services. History is full of Kings granting patents to individuals who then become rich because they are the only ones in the kingdom that can use or sell these products and services.
In this context patents are exclusive (monopolistic) grants by governments to inventors so that they can sell/use their inventions without worrying about competitors. In this case Apple was granted an European patent for the exclusive use of a feature, product and/or service that Samsung is now trying to use. Apple is objecting and is going to the government to enforce the exclusivity that the government has granted. If the government agrees with Apple that its patent is indeed valid, and that Samsung is in fact infringing, then the government will have to enforce the patents exclusiveness by banning the sell and distribution of Samsungs' infringing product.
Except that the alleged infringement filed in the German court is all about a rectangular form-factor. Nothing more. They're not asking the court to rule on a utility patent, the way the icons are organized, the overall "look and feel" or even any specific hardware or software functions. It's simply if the Samsung Tab is also a rectangular tablet in the same general shape as the iPad.
So Apple claims they own the exclusive right to a portable computer in the shape of a rectangle with rounded corners, and asking the court to ban, in effect, any other competing device that's also rectangular with rounded corners. How rounded? Not specified. And denying the use of that form-factor to all competitors would effectively remove all competition from the European market. From a common sense perspective it sounds, well. . . nonsensical.
If you control the entire market by removing the ability of anyone to compete with you, it does sound a lot like a monopoly to me.
Apple claims they own the exclusive right to a portable computer in the shape of a rectangle with rounded corners, and asking the court to ban, in effect, any other competing device that's also rectangular with rounded corners. How rounded? Not specified. And denying the use of that form-factor to all competitors would effectively remove all competition from the European market. From a common sense perspective it sounds, well. . . nonsensical.
This time the judge concurred with you, Gatorguy: the court rejected claims that Samsung stole intellectual copyrights, or that it slavishly copied Apple's iPad and iPhone. Effectively thrashing Apple's idiotic claims they 'own' the look & feel of tablets and smartphones.
But Apple DID seriously try! So Apple DOES behave as a monopolist!
And it takes only one cranky judge who had a fight with his wife that morning to turn this around! Scary! Justice is hanging by a thread.
But Apple DID seriously try! So Apple DOES behave as a monopolist!
Any other company in the world would do this too given half the chance but they don't have good enough products.
This is just another one of those situations where people complain that Apple corners a market by making good, expensive products and cheer the people who rip them off and then complain about Apple when they get sued. Those people just try too hard to see Apple fail.
Without their efforts, people would still be using dumbphones or Blackberries and they deserve for their innovation to be protected.
Apple is not saying that nobody else can sell tablets... only that Samsung should be doing their OWN R&D ... that they can't make a tablet that looks and behaves like an iPad.
It's about Apple protecting their patent rights and intellectual property... not about controlling the market. (They control the market by a combination of great products and good marketing
I think the OP is using "monopolist" to mean "big and powerful and doing things I dislike."
No, I'm pretty sure his ignorance of the meaning of "monopoly" is only exceeded by his ignorance of the meaning of "osmosis".
Any other company in the world would do this too given half the chance but they don't have good enough products.
"Any other company in the world" would kill for a monopoly in its market. If it says it wouldn't it is lying through its teeth.
And it doesn't make monopolies one iota less criminal.
You're halfway there, guys!
Hang in there, you'll get it.
Eventually.
"Any other company in the world" would kill for a monopoly in its market. If it says it wouldn't it is lying through its teeth.
And it doesn't make monopolies one iota less criminal.
You're halfway there, guys!
Hang in there, you'll get it.
Eventually.
Except we've already proven that Apple isn't behaving monopolistically.
Well, one troll down this week; another soon?
You're halfway there, guys!
Hang in there, you'll get it.
Eventually.
via osmosis ???
via osmosis ???
That's your best bet...
Except we've already proven that Apple isn't behaving monopolistically.
FYI:
you don't have to prove anything (even if you could
FYI:
you don't have to prove anything (even if you could
so... they're NOT innocent until PROVEN guilty ???
Did you pay attention in ANY class in school ??? (we've obviously ruled out science and civics!)
What antitrust laws actually do is protect competition. They are designed to prevent companies with a dominant position in a market from using that dominance to prevent others from competing with them, or using market power to leverage themselves into other markets in ways their competitors cannot. Is Apple doing any of this? Not as far as I can see. However, as Apple grows steadily more dominant they do have to be more careful about the ways they exercise their market powers. Locking up a lot of component manufacturing capacity worldwide could be an antitrust suit waiting to happen. Even so the case will have to be made by someone, and this requires a lot of evidence.
In any event, it's not about Apple protecting their intellectual property; That "monopoly," assuming they can prove their case, is guaranteed under law.