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.
To say there are few choices in design for a tablet is in my view not true. As far as hardware is concerned, ask Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and Sony. All have different designs. Amazon and Barnes and Noble's products are actually selling. Sony's designs are interesting and initially received good reviews, but the final products seem to be cheaply made, which undermines the design.
I am not necessarily opposed to allowing companies to copy one another's designs. It works in the clothing industry where copyright protections do not apply. Yet, that is a highly innovative, competitive, and growing industry. The players there though know what they are getting into before they sink tons of money into something. However, the system is set up differently for other industries, and before Apple invested hundreds of millions of dollars into research, it did so understanding IP law is supposed to protect this investment. It is far less costly for Samsung to bring to market a copy of an Apple product because it has Apple's product as a model, and it has the added benefit of already manufacturing many of the products for Apple that is needs. So, Apple is essentially subsidizing the sale of Samsung's products through the research dollars Samsung didn't have to spend.
I also disagree that Apple is just as guilty of copying. For the most part, Apple seems to be pretty respectfully. There is a difference between blindly copying something, and being inspired by something and then creating your own interpretation. When Apple is inspired by an idea it often buys the idea outright (e.g. iTunes) or adds to an idea (often times either buys or employs the original creator). In the notification case, Apple seems to be inspired by a popular iOS Notification System sold to the jailbroken market. Apple hired the creator of that Application.
While I don't think Apple blatantly takes anything from Android, even if it did, I wouldn't find that problematic. Google practically entourages with its anti-intellectual property rants, and its blatant copying of others work. Hard to respect a competitor who doesn't respect anybody else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing
There are very few choices in design for a sleek tablet, but it is apparent that Samsung chose to make a device that looks very similar to the iPhone and iPad. Do I care, no? The Samsung devices still run Android, not iOS, so my business stays with Apple. The argument that the average customer cannot tell the difference or will somehow be confused by this is an insult to anyone with an average IQ and is just fodder for the lawyers.
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, Samsung's phones are plastic versus the iPhones steel and glass. The difference in build quality is evident. So Samsung decided to put apps icons in a grid format with a little dock to ape Apple. So? That doesn't make their product better than Apples? That is like comparing a $15,000 car versus a $30,000 car...build quality.
Why do I feel this way? Because Apple is just a guilty of this. A prime example is this new notification bar that is in iOS 5 which remarkably resembles the Android notification bar. So how can Apple sue for look and feel infringements, but then do the very same thing...while publicly touting the new feature?
No lawsuits should be filed. It is a waste of time and money. Apple is now making the correct and appropriate move, something they should have done earlier, by dropping Samsung as a customer. Samsung will feel the loss of about $8 billion a year much more than the loss of potential tablet and phone sales.
I see this entire argument over "look and feel" to be ridiculous in the first place. There are very few choices in design for a sleek tablet, but it is apparent that Samsung chose to make a device that looks very similar to the iPhone and iPad. Do I care, no? The Samsung devices still run Android, not iOS, so my business stays with Apple.
It's not about how Samsung tablets are also rectangular with a glass front, or Samsung phones having the home button in the same location as the iPhone. That would be ridiculous, just like you said. The problem Apple has with Samsung, is that they are purposefully trying to copy those (superficial) aspects that people associate with iPad & iPhone, to try to confuse and trick buyers into thinking they are the same thing: design, packaging, marketing, the way the software (touchwiz, kies) looks.
Quote:
The argument that the average customer cannot tell the difference or will somehow be confused by this is an insult to anyone with an average IQ and is just fodder for the lawyers.
I sincerely disagree here. I think there many, many people will confuse Galaxy Tabs and the Galaxy S with the iPhone, and buy them because they think it's the same thing. Of course no-one is going to miss the giant 'SAMSUNG' logo, or the lack of an Apple logo. People are not _that_ stupid. Instead, they see 2 tablets from different manufacturers, who look almost exactly the same, are marketed as having the same kind of applications, are sold at similar prices, and judge they will have the same capabilities. For many people, a tablet is no different from a DVD player or a Microwave, to them, they are all the same, and they all do the same thing. Only when they get home with their Galaxy Tab and find out none of the cool iPad apps they have heard about are available, or can't for the life of them figure out how to configure the WiFi or get some music on the thing, they will realize iPads and Galaxy Tabs are basically completely different devices, from a usability perspective.
None of this is saying only Apple should be allowed to make tablets or something, just that I find it pretty distasteful how Samsung is deliberately trying to get a free ride on the success Apple has had with its products, by basically stealing their product strategy.
Quote:
Why do I feel this way? Because Apple is just a guilty of this. A prime example is this new notification bar that is in iOS 5 which remarkably resembles the Android notification bar. So how can Apple sue for look and feel infringements, but then do the very same thing...while publicly touting the new feature?
This is a bad example, as there was nothing unique or innovative about the Android notification system in the first place, which is just a rehash of a million other notification tray implementations we've seen on desktop OS's and mobile phones. Also, I don't actually think the iOS 5 notification tray 'looks and feels' similar to Android. It operates in almost the exact same way, but visually, it looks quite different.
I know this is splitting hairs, but I simply think referring to how iOS 5 'copied' the Android notification system simply goes to show how innovative iOS actually is, when the notification tray in iOS 5 is the only thing people can come up with as an example of Apple copying anyone.
Quote:
No lawsuits should be filed. It is a waste of time and money. Apple is now making the correct and appropriate move, something they should have done earlier, by dropping Samsung as a customer. Samsung will feel the loss of about $8 billion a year much more than the loss of potential tablet and phone sales.
Agreed, this has all come to one big dickfight, and I don't like any of it.
That said, I think the Android camp is simply getting what it deserves, by pretending to be open and free. There's almost nothing 'open' about Android except that you can see the source code (except for all 3.x releases), and the only reason you could say it is 'free' is because Google took a deliberate choice to simply take whatever they could get their grubby hands on from other parties, trying to 'sell' it as their own, not negotiating any licensing deals, all while being anti-competitive in the way they treat their hardware partners (think Skyhook/Motorola, and the pressure they put on their 'partners' to prevent them from replacing Google services).
I don't care about who is copying who that much, as long as it doesn't come down to simply trying to KIRF succesful products like Samsung does. What does rub me completely the wrong way is the hypocrisy around it especially from Google, who simply don't practice what they preach, pretending to be something they are not, and pretending they care about Android end-users (which they don't). It's stuff like this that really puts me off when it comes to Android.
Perhaps Samsung WANTS Apple to stop buying components from them - so that they can either use their production capacity to build their own products and or be able to sell more components to other companies at higher margins per item then they get from Apple.
The reactions here are largely over the top. These patents are unlikely to be of much value, because as others have stated, most of Samsung's patents are licensed on FRAND terms. However, Samsung is jockeying for position for a settlement, which is what they seem to want really quickly now.
Their CEO's problem is that his time is running short. Currently Samsung is making the most popular Android phone, but if HTC picks up their game, and/or Googrola comes up with a better phone and Samsung's Android profits drop, his shareholders won't tolerate this anymore. Hence their need to settle quickly.
Perhaps Samsung WANTS Apple to stop buying components from them - so that they can either use their production capacity to build their own products and or be able to sell more components to other companies at higher margins per item then they get from Apple.
There is a simpler solution if that was the case.
Just say no. Its not like they are forced to manufacture for Apple.
Fair enough, though Samsung still has about $20 billion (at least from what I found). Good points on profits and cash, nevertheless.
True and neither company will dump anything like 20 billion down this hole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64
Perhaps Samsung WANTS Apple to stop buying components from them - so that they can either use their production capacity to build their own products and or be able to sell more components to other companies at higher margins per item then they get from Apple.
Maybe. But, a lot of what Samsung does for Apple is custom fab on the A4/A5, since there are no other customers the size of Apple, they would incur significant additional overhead spreading that around.
Should they just stop making Galaxy devices in order to save the semiconductor business?
I know, I know. Some of you will say Samsung should stop infringing on Apple IP. Take a good look at the facts - Apple is the most sued company in the world for IP infringement. Their track record is very murky. 3G technology is a patent mine field. How could they possibly not infringe on anyone's patents? But that does not stop Apple.
They don't even respect other companies' basic copyrights, and go ahead and start using iXXX as product names before any discussion.
Apple is a great company but they are using their leadership position to be a bully. In some cases, they are justified. One or two Samsung products do come too close. In others, not so much. Bottom line - how many people are confusing the Galaxy Tab with iPads? Clearly not many because, according to all of yous, no one is buying any tablet except for iPads.
I don't feel, as a satisfied customer of Apple, I need to blindly support everything they do and bash every competitor of theirs. Why do so many of you feel such an obligation?
I see this entire argument over "look and feel" to be ridiculous in the first place. There are very few choices in design for a sleek tablet, but it is apparent that Samsung chose to make a device that looks very similar to the iPhone and iPad. ...
I see this argument a lot, but I don't think it's true. Before Apple entered the phone market and then the tablet market, there were tons of variations. Just go back to the pre-launch speculations. There were no shortages or ideas for what Apple might do, what Apple should do, and what Apple would do, etc.
Then Apple produces a product. People are surprised. Competitors talk up what a stupid design it is. And then magically a year later, that's suddenly the only way to do it. Samsung's efforts are especially egregious. It's not a case of not being able to see other ways to do a thing. It's a case of copying every detail as exactly as possible, with a couple of token changes thrown in to throw off the laziest hounds.
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.
First, Samsung is apparently being run like a mafia. Big boss seems to be bullying his way in.
Second, Samsung has thousands of patents, but mostly pertain to manufacturing.
Many of their patents are great, you can see that from the quality of their top-notch manufacturing.
Unfortunately for Samsung, these patents are useless against Apple, since Apple is not a manufacturer.
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.
I would say this is a reasonable assessment.
Samsung seems to be acting really quite stupidly here. Their lawyers are making arguments that are patently ridiculous on the face of it.
Usually when that happens (when smart lawyers make dumb statements, and big otherwise smart companies do dumb things), it's a reflection of a top-down, patriarchal kind of management structure.
If one dumb guy at the top can make moves that the whole company follows (despite how dumb they are), it's because they are both scared of the leader and at the same time not empowered enough to do anything about it themselves. That alone is evidence of a broken culture within the company.
Their lawyers are making arguments that are patently ridiculous on the face of it.
Usually when that happens. . . , it's a reflection of a top-down, patriarchal kind of management structure.
If one guy at the top can make moves that the whole company follows. . . , it's because they are both scared of the leader. . . and at the same time not empowered enough to do anything about it themselves. That alone is evidence of a broken culture within the company.
To say there are few choices in design for a tablet is in my view not true. As far as hardware is concerned, ask Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and Sony. All have different designs. Amazon and Barnes and Noble's products are actually selling. Sony's designs are interesting and initially received good reviews, but the final products seem to be cheaply made, which undermines the design.
I am not necessarily opposed to allowing companies to copy one another's designs. It works in the clothing industry where copyright protections do not apply. Yet, that is a highly innovative, competitive, and growing industry. The players there though know what they are getting into before they sink tons of money into something. However, the system is set up differently for other industries, and before Apple invested hundreds of millions of dollars into research, it did so understanding IP law is supposed to protect this investment. It is far less costly for Samsung to bring to market a copy of an Apple product because it has Apple's product as a model, and it has the added benefit of already manufacturing many of the products for Apple that is needs. So, Apple is essentially subsidizing the sale of Samsung's products through the research dollars Samsung didn't have to spend.
I also disagree that Apple is just as guilty of copying. For the most part, Apple seems to be pretty respectfully. There is a difference between blindly copying something, and being inspired by something and then creating your own interpretation. When Apple is inspired by an idea it often buys the idea outright (e.g. iTunes) or adds to an idea (often times either buys or employs the original creator). In the notification case, Apple seems to be inspired by a popular iOS Notification System sold to the jailbroken market. Apple hired the creator of that Application.
While I don't think Apple blatantly takes anything from Android, even if it did, I wouldn't find that problematic. Google practically entourages with its anti-intellectual property rants, and its blatant copying of others work. Hard to respect a competitor who doesn't respect anybody else.
The 'how could there be any other design' arguments are ridiculous I agree. Imagine how far Timex would get if they made an almost identical watch to a Rolex then argued the same way!
The 'how could there be any other design' arguments are ridiculous I agree. Imagine how far Timex would get if they made an almost identical watch to a Rolex then argued the same way!
And just imagine how silly it would sound if Timex were told they couldn't sell a thin watch shaped like a Rolex (round) with a glass face, a small bezel and a single button for setting the time. You're correct. That would be ridiculous.
Perhaps Samsung WANTS Apple to stop buying components from them - so that they can either use their production capacity to build their own products and or be able to sell more components to other companies at higher margins per item then they get from Apple.
I've heard this theory before, but from a business perspective it doesn't make any sense, unless you hate making money.
If Samsung was really strapped for production capacity, and thinks they could make more money producing stuff for other customers, they would not 'free up' capacity by showing current customers the door, instead they would work to increase their production capacity. And even _if_ they were stupid enough to tell any of their component customers they don't want to supply them anymore, they would rather ditch 10 small customers than 1 big one such as Apple.
What a lot of people don't realize is that you can't just walk into a semiconductor fab and say 'hey guys I want you to produce a few million of these'. It takes very large initial investments to setup a production line for any kind of IC as complex as the application processor in the iPhone: trial runs, process and mask optimizations, tweaks to the layout you are producing, tweaks to the machine settings you are using, experience how prlonged production runs of that particular design affect imaging performance and how to mitigate them (ie: application specific calibration), and so on and so forth. Producing complex IC's like this is anything but loading a reticle and pressing a button, it's almost a science.
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.
I've heard this theory before, but from a business perspective it doesn't make any sense, unless you hate making money.
If Samsung was really strapped for production capacity, and thinks they could make more money producing stuff for other customers, they would not 'free up' capacity by showing current customers the door, instead they would work to increase their production capacity. And even _if_ they were stupid enough to tell any of their component customers they don't want to supply them anymore, they would rather ditch 10 small customers than 1 big one such as Apple.
What a lot of people don't realize is that you can't just walk into a semiconductor fab and say 'hey guys I want you to produce a few million of these'. It takes very large initial investments to setup a production line for any kind of IC as complex as the application processor in the iPhone: trial runs, process and mask optimizations, tweaks to the layout you are producing, tweaks to the machine settings you are using, experience how prlonged production runs of that particular design affect imaging performance and how to mitigate them (ie: application specific calibration), and so on and so forth. Producing complex IC's like this is anything but loading a reticle and pressing a button, it's almost a science.
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.
People make the "Samsung doesn't want Apple argument" because Samsung's actions make no sense. I believe the answer is much simpler. Samsung is just too big. There is a complete lack of centralized control. There is no coordinated vision for the company. It is a conglomerate without purpose. The companies only goal is to make money. Unfortunately for investors, they seem to be doing a progressively worse job of that every quarter.
If you review the wording of any of the standards bodies in which Samsung participates with their IPR, you will fiind these same standards in place. I invite you to do your own homework and not demand that others perform the due diligence you seem to lack.
Thank you for that text. It appears to be extracted verbatim from the "F/RAND" article on the website "IT Law Wiki". That gives an overview about F/RAND licenses in general, rather than discussing the specific terms that are in place at the relevant standards body in this case.
That is, in fact, exactly my point! We're spewing forth generalizations about what Samsung is, and is not, permitted to do under its F/RAND commitments, without knowing for sure exactly what terms Samsung had actually committed to!
For example, in at least one of Samsung's F/RAND patent declarations filed at the ETSI, they added a rider requiring "reciprocity". What, exactly, is the form of the reciprocity that might be stipulated by that rider? I haven't seen anything yet to specifically clarify that point.
Comments
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.
^This... Just.... This
I am not necessarily opposed to allowing companies to copy one another's designs. It works in the clothing industry where copyright protections do not apply. Yet, that is a highly innovative, competitive, and growing industry. The players there though know what they are getting into before they sink tons of money into something. However, the system is set up differently for other industries, and before Apple invested hundreds of millions of dollars into research, it did so understanding IP law is supposed to protect this investment. It is far less costly for Samsung to bring to market a copy of an Apple product because it has Apple's product as a model, and it has the added benefit of already manufacturing many of the products for Apple that is needs. So, Apple is essentially subsidizing the sale of Samsung's products through the research dollars Samsung didn't have to spend.
I also disagree that Apple is just as guilty of copying. For the most part, Apple seems to be pretty respectfully. There is a difference between blindly copying something, and being inspired by something and then creating your own interpretation. When Apple is inspired by an idea it often buys the idea outright (e.g. iTunes) or adds to an idea (often times either buys or employs the original creator). In the notification case, Apple seems to be inspired by a popular iOS Notification System sold to the jailbroken market. Apple hired the creator of that Application.
While I don't think Apple blatantly takes anything from Android, even if it did, I wouldn't find that problematic. Google practically entourages with its anti-intellectual property rants, and its blatant copying of others work. Hard to respect a competitor who doesn't respect anybody else.
There are very few choices in design for a sleek tablet, but it is apparent that Samsung chose to make a device that looks very similar to the iPhone and iPad. Do I care, no? The Samsung devices still run Android, not iOS, so my business stays with Apple. The argument that the average customer cannot tell the difference or will somehow be confused by this is an insult to anyone with an average IQ and is just fodder for the lawyers.
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, Samsung's phones are plastic versus the iPhones steel and glass. The difference in build quality is evident. So Samsung decided to put apps icons in a grid format with a little dock to ape Apple. So? That doesn't make their product better than Apples? That is like comparing a $15,000 car versus a $30,000 car...build quality.
Why do I feel this way? Because Apple is just a guilty of this. A prime example is this new notification bar that is in iOS 5 which remarkably resembles the Android notification bar. So how can Apple sue for look and feel infringements, but then do the very same thing...while publicly touting the new feature?
No lawsuits should be filed. It is a waste of time and money. Apple is now making the correct and appropriate move, something they should have done earlier, by dropping Samsung as a customer. Samsung will feel the loss of about $8 billion a year much more than the loss of potential tablet and phone sales.
I see this entire argument over "look and feel" to be ridiculous in the first place. There are very few choices in design for a sleek tablet, but it is apparent that Samsung chose to make a device that looks very similar to the iPhone and iPad. Do I care, no? The Samsung devices still run Android, not iOS, so my business stays with Apple.
It's not about how Samsung tablets are also rectangular with a glass front, or Samsung phones having the home button in the same location as the iPhone. That would be ridiculous, just like you said. The problem Apple has with Samsung, is that they are purposefully trying to copy those (superficial) aspects that people associate with iPad & iPhone, to try to confuse and trick buyers into thinking they are the same thing: design, packaging, marketing, the way the software (touchwiz, kies) looks.
The argument that the average customer cannot tell the difference or will somehow be confused by this is an insult to anyone with an average IQ and is just fodder for the lawyers.
I sincerely disagree here. I think there many, many people will confuse Galaxy Tabs and the Galaxy S with the iPhone, and buy them because they think it's the same thing. Of course no-one is going to miss the giant 'SAMSUNG' logo, or the lack of an Apple logo. People are not _that_ stupid. Instead, they see 2 tablets from different manufacturers, who look almost exactly the same, are marketed as having the same kind of applications, are sold at similar prices, and judge they will have the same capabilities. For many people, a tablet is no different from a DVD player or a Microwave, to them, they are all the same, and they all do the same thing. Only when they get home with their Galaxy Tab and find out none of the cool iPad apps they have heard about are available, or can't for the life of them figure out how to configure the WiFi or get some music on the thing, they will realize iPads and Galaxy Tabs are basically completely different devices, from a usability perspective.
None of this is saying only Apple should be allowed to make tablets or something, just that I find it pretty distasteful how Samsung is deliberately trying to get a free ride on the success Apple has had with its products, by basically stealing their product strategy.
Why do I feel this way? Because Apple is just a guilty of this. A prime example is this new notification bar that is in iOS 5 which remarkably resembles the Android notification bar. So how can Apple sue for look and feel infringements, but then do the very same thing...while publicly touting the new feature?
This is a bad example, as there was nothing unique or innovative about the Android notification system in the first place, which is just a rehash of a million other notification tray implementations we've seen on desktop OS's and mobile phones. Also, I don't actually think the iOS 5 notification tray 'looks and feels' similar to Android. It operates in almost the exact same way, but visually, it looks quite different.
I know this is splitting hairs, but I simply think referring to how iOS 5 'copied' the Android notification system simply goes to show how innovative iOS actually is, when the notification tray in iOS 5 is the only thing people can come up with as an example of Apple copying anyone.
No lawsuits should be filed. It is a waste of time and money. Apple is now making the correct and appropriate move, something they should have done earlier, by dropping Samsung as a customer. Samsung will feel the loss of about $8 billion a year much more than the loss of potential tablet and phone sales.
Agreed, this has all come to one big dickfight, and I don't like any of it.
That said, I think the Android camp is simply getting what it deserves, by pretending to be open and free. There's almost nothing 'open' about Android except that you can see the source code (except for all 3.x releases), and the only reason you could say it is 'free' is because Google took a deliberate choice to simply take whatever they could get their grubby hands on from other parties, trying to 'sell' it as their own, not negotiating any licensing deals, all while being anti-competitive in the way they treat their hardware partners (think Skyhook/Motorola, and the pressure they put on their 'partners' to prevent them from replacing Google services).
I don't care about who is copying who that much, as long as it doesn't come down to simply trying to KIRF succesful products like Samsung does. What does rub me completely the wrong way is the hypocrisy around it especially from Google, who simply don't practice what they preach, pretending to be something they are not, and pretending they care about Android end-users (which they don't). It's stuff like this that really puts me off when it comes to Android.
Their CEO's problem is that his time is running short. Currently Samsung is making the most popular Android phone, but if HTC picks up their game, and/or Googrola comes up with a better phone and Samsung's Android profits drop, his shareholders won't tolerate this anymore. Hence their need to settle quickly.
Perhaps Samsung WANTS Apple to stop buying components from them - so that they can either use their production capacity to build their own products and or be able to sell more components to other companies at higher margins per item then they get from Apple.
There is a simpler solution if that was the case.
Just say no. Its not like they are forced to manufacture for Apple.
Good point.
Fair enough, though Samsung still has about $20 billion (at least from what I found). Good points on profits and cash, nevertheless.
True and neither company will dump anything like 20 billion down this hole.
Perhaps Samsung WANTS Apple to stop buying components from them - so that they can either use their production capacity to build their own products and or be able to sell more components to other companies at higher margins per item then they get from Apple.
Maybe. But, a lot of what Samsung does for Apple is custom fab on the A4/A5, since there are no other customers the size of Apple, they would incur significant additional overhead spreading that around.
Should they just stop making Galaxy devices in order to save the semiconductor business?
I know, I know. Some of you will say Samsung should stop infringing on Apple IP. Take a good look at the facts - Apple is the most sued company in the world for IP infringement. Their track record is very murky. 3G technology is a patent mine field. How could they possibly not infringe on anyone's patents? But that does not stop Apple.
They don't even respect other companies' basic copyrights, and go ahead and start using iXXX as product names before any discussion.
Apple is a great company but they are using their leadership position to be a bully. In some cases, they are justified. One or two Samsung products do come too close. In others, not so much. Bottom line - how many people are confusing the Galaxy Tab with iPads? Clearly not many because, according to all of yous, no one is buying any tablet except for iPads.
I don't feel, as a satisfied customer of Apple, I need to blindly support everything they do and bash every competitor of theirs. Why do so many of you feel such an obligation?
I see this entire argument over "look and feel" to be ridiculous in the first place. There are very few choices in design for a sleek tablet, but it is apparent that Samsung chose to make a device that looks very similar to the iPhone and iPad. ...
I see this argument a lot, but I don't think it's true. Before Apple entered the phone market and then the tablet market, there were tons of variations. Just go back to the pre-launch speculations. There were no shortages or ideas for what Apple might do, what Apple should do, and what Apple would do, etc.
Then Apple produces a product. People are surprised. Competitors talk up what a stupid design it is. And then magically a year later, that's suddenly the only way to do it. Samsung's efforts are especially egregious. It's not a case of not being able to see other ways to do a thing. It's a case of copying every detail as exactly as possible, with a couple of token changes thrown in to throw off the laziest hounds.
Samsung CEO failed the basic jobs of being a CEO.
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.
First, Samsung is apparently being run like a mafia. Big boss seems to be bullying his way in.
Second, Samsung has thousands of patents, but mostly pertain to manufacturing.
Many of their patents are great, you can see that from the quality of their top-notch manufacturing.
Unfortunately for Samsung, these patents are useless against Apple, since Apple is not a manufacturer.
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.
I would say this is a reasonable assessment.
Samsung seems to be acting really quite stupidly here. Their lawyers are making arguments that are patently ridiculous on the face of it.
Usually when that happens (when smart lawyers make dumb statements, and big otherwise smart companies do dumb things), it's a reflection of a top-down, patriarchal kind of management structure.
If one dumb guy at the top can make moves that the whole company follows (despite how dumb they are), it's because they are both scared of the leader and at the same time not empowered enough to do anything about it themselves. That alone is evidence of a broken culture within the company.
They don't even respect other companies' basic copyrights, and go ahead and start using iXXX as product names before any discussion.
Which iXXX products are you referring to? They paid for iCloud and iPad, that has been well documented.
Their lawyers are making arguments that are patently ridiculous on the face of it.
Usually when that happens. . . , it's a reflection of a top-down, patriarchal kind of management structure.
If one guy at the top can make moves that the whole company follows. . . , it's because they are both scared of the leader. . . and at the same time not empowered enough to do anything about it themselves. That alone is evidence of a broken culture within the company.
Hmmm. . . Not sure that's a great talking point.
To say there are few choices in design for a tablet is in my view not true. As far as hardware is concerned, ask Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and Sony. All have different designs. Amazon and Barnes and Noble's products are actually selling. Sony's designs are interesting and initially received good reviews, but the final products seem to be cheaply made, which undermines the design.
I am not necessarily opposed to allowing companies to copy one another's designs. It works in the clothing industry where copyright protections do not apply. Yet, that is a highly innovative, competitive, and growing industry. The players there though know what they are getting into before they sink tons of money into something. However, the system is set up differently for other industries, and before Apple invested hundreds of millions of dollars into research, it did so understanding IP law is supposed to protect this investment. It is far less costly for Samsung to bring to market a copy of an Apple product because it has Apple's product as a model, and it has the added benefit of already manufacturing many of the products for Apple that is needs. So, Apple is essentially subsidizing the sale of Samsung's products through the research dollars Samsung didn't have to spend.
I also disagree that Apple is just as guilty of copying. For the most part, Apple seems to be pretty respectfully. There is a difference between blindly copying something, and being inspired by something and then creating your own interpretation. When Apple is inspired by an idea it often buys the idea outright (e.g. iTunes) or adds to an idea (often times either buys or employs the original creator). In the notification case, Apple seems to be inspired by a popular iOS Notification System sold to the jailbroken market. Apple hired the creator of that Application.
While I don't think Apple blatantly takes anything from Android, even if it did, I wouldn't find that problematic. Google practically entourages with its anti-intellectual property rants, and its blatant copying of others work. Hard to respect a competitor who doesn't respect anybody else.
The 'how could there be any other design' arguments are ridiculous I agree. Imagine how far Timex would get if they made an almost identical watch to a Rolex then argued the same way!
The 'how could there be any other design' arguments are ridiculous I agree. Imagine how far Timex would get if they made an almost identical watch to a Rolex then argued the same way!
And just imagine how silly it would sound if Timex were told they couldn't sell a thin watch shaped like a Rolex (round) with a glass face, a small bezel and a single button for setting the time. You're correct. That would be ridiculous.
There is a simpler solution if that was the case.
Just say no. Its not like they are forced to manufacture for Apple.
Might no be so simple - especially from a PR standpoint.
Or maybe it is a left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing type situation.
Perhaps Samsung WANTS Apple to stop buying components from them - so that they can either use their production capacity to build their own products and or be able to sell more components to other companies at higher margins per item then they get from Apple.
I've heard this theory before, but from a business perspective it doesn't make any sense, unless you hate making money.
If Samsung was really strapped for production capacity, and thinks they could make more money producing stuff for other customers, they would not 'free up' capacity by showing current customers the door, instead they would work to increase their production capacity. And even _if_ they were stupid enough to tell any of their component customers they don't want to supply them anymore, they would rather ditch 10 small customers than 1 big one such as Apple.
What a lot of people don't realize is that you can't just walk into a semiconductor fab and say 'hey guys I want you to produce a few million of these'. It takes very large initial investments to setup a production line for any kind of IC as complex as the application processor in the iPhone: trial runs, process and mask optimizations, tweaks to the layout you are producing, tweaks to the machine settings you are using, experience how prlonged production runs of that particular design affect imaging performance and how to mitigate them (ie: application specific calibration), and so on and so forth. Producing complex IC's like this is anything but loading a reticle and pressing a button, it's almost a science.
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.
Apple is not Christ-like in any manner.
Metaphor?a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
I was not attacking your belief system. I am sorry if that was the impression I made.
I've heard this theory before, but from a business perspective it doesn't make any sense, unless you hate making money.
If Samsung was really strapped for production capacity, and thinks they could make more money producing stuff for other customers, they would not 'free up' capacity by showing current customers the door, instead they would work to increase their production capacity. And even _if_ they were stupid enough to tell any of their component customers they don't want to supply them anymore, they would rather ditch 10 small customers than 1 big one such as Apple.
What a lot of people don't realize is that you can't just walk into a semiconductor fab and say 'hey guys I want you to produce a few million of these'. It takes very large initial investments to setup a production line for any kind of IC as complex as the application processor in the iPhone: trial runs, process and mask optimizations, tweaks to the layout you are producing, tweaks to the machine settings you are using, experience how prlonged production runs of that particular design affect imaging performance and how to mitigate them (ie: application specific calibration), and so on and so forth. Producing complex IC's like this is anything but loading a reticle and pressing a button, it's almost a science.
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.
People make the "Samsung doesn't want Apple argument" because Samsung's actions make no sense. I believe the answer is much simpler. Samsung is just too big. There is a complete lack of centralized control. There is no coordinated vision for the company. It is a conglomerate without purpose. The companies only goal is to make money. Unfortunately for investors, they seem to be doing a progressively worse job of that every quarter.
Try this:
If you review the wording of any of the standards bodies in which Samsung participates with their IPR, you will fiind these same standards in place. I invite you to do your own homework and not demand that others perform the due diligence you seem to lack.
Thank you for that text. It appears to be extracted verbatim from the "F/RAND" article on the website "IT Law Wiki". That gives an overview about F/RAND licenses in general, rather than discussing the specific terms that are in place at the relevant standards body in this case.
That is, in fact, exactly my point! We're spewing forth generalizations about what Samsung is, and is not, permitted to do under its F/RAND commitments, without knowing for sure exactly what terms Samsung had actually committed to!
For example, in at least one of Samsung's F/RAND patent declarations filed at the ETSI, they added a rider requiring "reciprocity". What, exactly, is the form of the reciprocity that might be stipulated by that rider? I haven't seen anything yet to specifically clarify that point.