Apple seeks $2.5 billion from Samsung in patent infringement case

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 72
    fuwafuwafuwafuwa Posts: 163member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by airnerd View Post


    I'm so glad Apple didn't invent the car.  They would be suing everyone for things like clear windshield with curve, door handles, 4 tires, and engine under a hood, the colors red or black or white, four doors as well as two, the use of chrome accents anywhere...you get the idea. 


     


     


    If it is square and around 10", then it MUST be an exact copy and we must sue.  I'm all for protecting what is yours, but this reeks of "we are out of new ideas so we better protect our old ones".  Rather than leaving the others to copy the old stuff and making something fresh and new, Apple is starting to put out the same stuff with minor differences, so they have to protect the look of the items.  Can't wait for the iPhone 5 to look like a stretched version of the 4/4S. 




    Wow, how cutting edge!



    ... and you didn't invent stupidity because many prior arts found among fandroid community.


    Oh c'mon, please stop stupid propaganda you got from fellow fandroids that Apple patented rectangle. The fact is Samsung slavishly copied iPad and iPhone, including packaging and accessories (charger, smart cover, etc).

  • Reply 42 of 72
    originalgoriginalg Posts: 383member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post


     


    Seemingly you know even less than me. Without Samsung components Apple's iOS devices would not be as good as they are today which puts Samsung in a strong bargaining position which makes good business sense to me. Samsung could simply stop supplying components tomorrow. $10Bn is nothing to Samsung. They would make that up in added Galaxy sales.


     


    My point is you can't buy from someone and then slag them off right left and centre. If I was Samsung I would take the revenue hit and tell Apple to go f*** themselves re components. I wonder how many iOS devices Apple could shift without any Samsung components.


     


    If Apple doesn't like Samsung then fair enough - Apple should source it's components elsewhere even if they are inferior to the Samsung components.


     


    Apple are only suing Samsung because they don't have the balls to go after the real culprit which is Google.


     


    Business is not just about the money. There is also honour, reputation and integrity as well. That's something Japanese and Korean companies consider to very important.


     


    Personally I would never be a supplier to Apple no matter how much money was involved because I think they are an arrogant bully.



     


    Google doesn't make phones, you can't sue them for hardware they didn't produce. All Nexus products are made by other manufacturers with Google supervising or providing the requirements.


     


    Samsung and honour (there are other sources too):


    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/06/20/iphone_5_will_put_samsungs_galaxy_s_iii_to_shame_says_foxconn_ceo.html


     


    "According to the China Times, it is Gou's lifetime goal to defeat Samsung, a company that he says has "a track record of snitching on its competitors." The chief executive is referring to the whistleblower role taken by Samsung in the European Commission's 2010 flat-panel price fixing investigation of four Taiwanese companies."


     


     


    I should say that I have Google Nexus and I'm impressed by the GS3, so I'm not a Samsung hater. But looking at my wall charger for my Galaxy Nexus side-by-side with the charger for my 4S, it makes you wonder where they're getting their "ideas" from, and this is just a minor thing often overlooked.

  • Reply 43 of 72
    just_mejust_me Posts: 590member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


    Coke didn't invent the bottle, but no one else can use the curved bottle. No other car company can produce a design like the Mustang. Again, at the time the iPhone was released (and patented), it was very different than every other phone available and not by just the rectangular shape.


     


    You can't let competitors piggy back on your designs.



    imageimageimage

  • Reply 44 of 72
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post

    image


     


    Is your intent to remove all legitimacy from your argument?

  • Reply 45 of 72
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SteveBalmer View Post


    Ehhhh who still gives a hoot about this copyright infringement nonsense? What a waste of time.



     


    Patent infringement, actually.

  • Reply 46 of 72
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by airnerd View Post


    I'm so glad Apple didn't invent the car.  They would be suing everyone for things like clear windshield with curve, door handles, 4 tires, and engine under a hood, the colors red or black or white, four doors as well as two, the use of chrome accents anywhere...you get the idea. 


     


     


    If it is square and around 10", then it MUST be an exact copy and we must sue.  I'm all for protecting what is yours, but this reeks of "we are out of new ideas so we better protect our old ones".  Rather than leaving the others to copy the old stuff and making something fresh and new, Apple is starting to put out the same stuff with minor differences, so they have to protect the look of the items.  Can't wait for the iPhone 5 to look like a stretched version of the 4/4S. 




    Wow, how cutting edge!



     


    As has been pointed out numerous times, nearly every part of an automobile is covered by individual patents. You just don't realize it because it's all hidden from sight, unlike the many high profile cases of infringement against Apple's property.

  • Reply 47 of 72
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by LighteningKid View Post


    Am I the only one that thinks $30 per device sounds excessive? And they're only offering half of one penny back? I realize this is non-standards essential and they can basically charge whatever they want. Then again, maybe they're aiming high with the thought it will probably get bumped down a bit through this whole process anyway.



    Since Apple has chosen to not offer licenses for their intellectual property, the real price is incalculable. Since damages are essential to this case, Apple has calculated a number based on unknown factors. You can bet if Samsung owned Apple's IP, they'd demand fees for every company infringing.

  • Reply 48 of 72
    fracfrac Posts: 480member
    shaun, uk wrote: »
    Seemingly you know even less than me. Without Samsung components Apple's iOS devices would not be as good as they are today which puts Samsung in a strong bargaining position which makes good business sense to me. Samsung could simply stop supplying components tomorrow. $10Bn is nothing to Samsung. They would make that up in added Galaxy sales.

    My point is you can't buy from someone and then slag them off right left and centre. If I was Samsung I would take the revenue hit and tell Apple to go f*** themselves re components. I wonder how many iOS devices Apple could shift without any Samsung components.

    If Apple doesn't like Samsung then fair enough - Apple should source it's components elsewhere even if they are inferior to the Samsung components.

    Apple are only suing Samsung because they don't have the balls to go after the real culprit which is Google.

    Business is not just about the money. There is also honour, reputation and integrity as well. That's something Japanese and Korean companies consider to very important.

    Personally I would never be a supplier to Apple no matter how much money was involved because I think they are an arrogant bully.

    And seemingly you know and understand much less than you think. Before Apple contracted Samsung to produce touch screens for the iPhone and iPad, there was no market - it didn't exist.. And how will they replace Apple's business when they have only shipped a few hundred thousand tablets to date and have never, ever released sales figures.
    The rest of your post makes zero sense in the light of your comments about honour, integrity and reputation. On the one hand you think Samsung should tell Apple to 'shove it' and refuse to supply Apple, negating its contractual obligations making them liable for legal action whilst exhibiting zero business sense from either a personal or brand perspective.
    I think you should retire from the discussion before your cognitive abilities are exposed any more.
  • Reply 49 of 72
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member


    I don't think the headline is correct. I did not see where "Apple seeks $2.5 billion" the document just states what Apples estimates are the losses. My attorney told me that responsible litigation would never involve disclosing how much someone is suing for to the press or anyone other than the opposing attorney and then only after discovery completed and negotiations had been attempted. You read in the news all the time that so and so is suing for x amount of dollars. It is almost always BS.

  • Reply 50 of 72
    xmikuxmiku Posts: 32member


    I need to stop reading this site, otherwise I will start hating Apple.


     


    $2 for tap to zoom per device? This is just ridiculous.


     


    I know you guys like to talk about how Apple is always innovating. But that's bullshit. Their innovations are like "double the screen resolution" or "make the device thinner". This is the kind of innovations we have seen in the last few years. So what else could they do other than to use their stupid patents against their competitors?


     


    I don't really feel good about being an Apple user right know.

  • Reply 51 of 72
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by xmiku View Post

    I need to stop reading this site, otherwise I will start hating Apple.


     


    I'm certain that didn't start before you ever signed up.

  • Reply 52 of 72
    raptoroo7raptoroo7 Posts: 140member


    Apple's method for calculating their IP value vs Samsungs FRAND IP value is highly distorted.  Without Samsungs IP for UMTS Apple is dead in the water on 3G technology and their devices go no where.  As for their high valuation for trade dress, well that is more hot air hype.


     


    The valuation on trade dress should be based on the real world question of would you buy this Samsung product if it didn't have the following . . . curved corners, bezel around the screen, blah, blah, blah.

  • Reply 53 of 72
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RaptorOO7 View Post

    …Apple is dead in the water on 3G technology…


     


    The second you mention a standard, any patents and their availability becomes moot.

  • Reply 54 of 72
    airnerd wrote: »
    I'm so glad Apple didn't invent the car.  They would be suing everyone for things like clear windshield with curve, door handles, 4 tires, and engine under a hood, the colors red or black or white, four doors as well as two, the use of chrome accents anywhere...you get the idea. 


    If it is square and around 10", then it MUST be an exact copy and we must sue.  I'm all for protecting what is yours, but this reeks of "we are out of new ideas so we better protect our old ones".  Rather than leaving the others to copy the old stuff and making something fresh and new, Apple is starting to put out the same stuff with minor differences, so they have to protect the look of the items.  Can't wait for the iPhone 5 to look like a stretched version of the 4/4S. 


    Wow, how cutting edge!

    If Apple's "old stuff" is so not worth protecting from copycats, then why are the goddamned copycats so desperate to copy it? If those ideas are so old, why would Samsung be willing to risk pissing off its best customer? What you attempt to deride as not "cutting edge" is apparently cutting edge enough to copy.
  • Reply 55 of 72

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post


     


    Personally I would never be a supplier to Apple no matter how much money was involved because I think they are an arrogant bully.



     


     


    Some small manufacturers fell the same way about selling to Mall*Wart.

  • Reply 56 of 72
    hungoverhungover Posts: 603member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    If your username is any indication, you've never created anything ever, so I'm not surprised you don't get it.



     A tad unfair. How often do CEOs invent anything?


     


    Bulmer might be crap but It isn't the role of CEOs to invent stuff.

  • Reply 57 of 72
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hungover View Post

    How often do CEOs invent anything?


     


    Steve did. So do most of the CEOs that start their own companies.

  • Reply 58 of 72
    xmiku wrote: »
    I need to stop reading this site, otherwise I will start hating Apple.

    $2 for tap to zoom per device? This is just ridiculous.

    I know you guys like to talk about how Apple is always innovating. But that's bullshit. Their innovations are like "double the screen resolution" or "make the device thinner". This is the kind of innovations we have seen in the last few years. So what else could they do other than to use their stupid patents against their competitors?

    I don't really feel good about being an Apple user right know.

    Verisimilitude: Your post lacks it.

    If Apple's innovations are all "bullshit," why are you an Apple user in the first place? (And you can't use the Microsoft excuse of "my work forces me to use it" because nobody forces you to use Apple.) Either you are confused about why you are an Apple user, or you are not an Apple user. Nobody chooses an Apple product because Apple is nicest to competitors. The only people who care about how Apple treats competitors are the competitors and their sycophants.

    These accusations of "bullshit innovations" are as old as "the iMac G3 is just the same old tired computer in translucent orange plastic." But oh, for a time, PC vendors were following the iMac-style translucent colored plastic trend. And I guarantee that competitors will copy Apple's next "bullshit innovations," and you'll still be here to defend the copycats, while simultaneously deriding what they copy as "bullshit innovations."
  • Reply 59 of 72
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post


     


    Ok once the current contract expires then. I'm sure Samsung will find other revenue streams. Apple only buys it's components from Samsung because they presumably are the best and they can't source the same quality elsewhere. Let's see how well the iPad does with second rate screens from LG or whoever. That's what I would do anyway and I think it's what Samsung will do. Why would you continue to sell your industry leading inventions to your arch enemy.



     


    Why would you turn your number one customer into an arch enemy?


     


    Hey what would your bosses do if you lost them 10% of the companies revenue in one hit?

  • Reply 60 of 72
    Bottom line:

    Samsung CEO Gee-sung Choi is the guy who gave the final go-ahead to a project that brought to market a product that looked and acted as similar as possible to Apple's (knockoff) so that non-savvy tech customers could be tricked into buying it.

    The iPhone knockoff project is just one of the many knockoff projects that Samsung has brought to market in the past 10 years - think stereo's, refrigerators, tv's, etc..., Stealing others IP is how Samsung has always made money. Nothing new here.

    But $2.5 billion? If Apple wins, bet you Samsung CEO Gee-sung Choi loses his job. What a bad bet he made.

    BTW, Google gets off scot free leaving Samsung holding the Android lawsuit bag.
Sign In or Register to comment.