But isn't this the patent where Apple said "We'll pay you a dollar tops per phone take it or leave it, if you don't take it we're going to claim you're not willing to negotiate and not pay you anything!" and then went on to tell a judge he could only set the 'fair and reasonable' rate at $1 or below and if he set it higher he was wasting his time because Apple would just drag the case out for years........
Yeah.. just keep reading hating Apple propagandas as fact and you'll be smarter. You knows.. N7 is selling better in Japan than iPad after all. :rolleyes:
(Oh.. and apparently the battery life in the new N7 is great too.. :double rolleyes: .. pathetic company. pathetic fan base.)
I tell you in the simplest manner possible. Apple want to pay "what others paid" and before that have a judge looking at "is the cost covered when they purchased said component?".
But isn't this the patent where Apple said "We'll pay you a dollar tops per phone take it or leave it, ...
No sir, that was the one between Motorola and Apple where Judge Crabb dismissed the case with prejudice. Even Foss Patents, who is usually anti-Motorola and pro-Apple, said that Apple blew a great chance to have a totally fair judge decide the rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sambira
Given that the patents in question are FRAND, this should be easy. Look at what Samsung is charging other licensees for the patents and apply that.
As far as I can tell from reading through the 800 pages of evidence, and 700 page ruling, one problem is that nobody had ever paid a flat cash rate. Everyone else engaged in cross-licensing and paid little or nothing.
Thus Samsung had to make up a starting cash rate, and it was then expected for Apple to negotiate it down. While Samsung made other offers, Apple refused to negotiate and that's why they got the ban. See the ITC statement at end of this post.
(Personally, I think that Apple should've still been given a last chance to resume negotiations or to enter abitration.)
Quote:
Also, as was stated earlier in this thread, how is Apple responsible for this if the patented areas are included in a component built by another company which probably already has the license and if they don't they would be the ones to violate the patent, unless it IS Apple who is building the component, of course.
The problem is that Infineon didn't have a Samsung license. That's why this only affects devices built before Apple switched to Qualcomm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Companies like Samsung and Motorola are using the ITC has an offensive weapon.
As does Apple. Remember that Apple got an ITC ban on certain HTC phones, which forced the latter into making a deal with Apple. It's been guessed that HTC now pays Apple $6-$8 per phone, along with having to license some of their patents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
You are right on both accounts. Apple is claiming the patents are exhausted and the license is already paid, but the ITC is not looking at that argument because that involves an agreement with a third party.
No sir, see above about Infineon. After the ITC ruled that Apple's devices infringed, Apple did not dispute that they owed Samsung a royalty.
However, Apple wanted it to be based only on a tiny percentage of the broadband chip price.
While that makes some sense, one problem was that ETSI royalties are not usually done that way. Secondly, using the physical chip price makes no sense, as that can go down over time, and has nothing to do with the continued value of related IP.
Ultimately, the ITC said the price was not up to Apple alone to decide, nor could they simply refuse to negotiate, nor could they claim as a defense that Samsung didn't follow ETSI FRAND rules when they themselves did not do so.
Quote:
"The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the evidence does not support Apple’s allegation that Sarnsung failed to offer Apple licenses to Samsung’s declared-essential patents on FRAND terms. Patents have the attributes of personal property. 35 U.S.C. § 261. Their value, in terms of licensing, varies according to a myriad of factors, and it is not enough for Apple to say that Samsung’s license offer was unreasonable based on Apple’s rationale.
"Remarkably, even though Apple complains that Samsung’s license offer was not FRAND, Apple has not shown that, as a member to ETSI, it ever availed itself of the process and procedures of the ETSI under Clause 4.3 of the ETSI Guide on IPRs, which provides for mediation by ETSI Members or the Secretariat. (RX-0713 at Clause 4.3.)
"It is not enough for Apple to complain that Samsung’s license offer of 2.4 percent of the selling prices of Apple’s devices, is unreasonable, since there is insufficient evidence of customs and practices of industry participants showing that Samsung’s demand is invidious with respect to Apple.
"Furthermore, negotiations often involve a process of offer and counteroffer before the parties arrive at an agreed price, but Apple’s evidence does not demonstrate that Apple put forth a sincere, bona tide effort to bargain with Samsung. Rather, it appears that Apple and Samsung both decided to negotiate licensing terms between each other through the tortuous, and expensive, process of litigation.
"More than what has been cited by Apple is necessary in order to establish that Samsung violated its obligations under Clause 6.1 of Annex 6: ETSI Intellectual Property Rights Policy. More than that, Apple needs to establish a legal basis for foreclosing enforcement under Section 337 in this investigation, which Apple has not done."
- ITC case 337-794
Again, I think a ban was too strong, but that's the only power the ITC has. Therefore it was an easy prediction that they would continue to use them in FRAND cases, no matter what the FTC had suggested.
If the Executive Branch does not override the ruling, the next step will be Apple filing with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which they've already indicated they will do.
Ignorance is bliss, you must be completely blissful.
Samsung was the one that started the whole problem. If Samsung just stuck to making components and not trying to copy and then compete with their component customer, maybe Samsung wouldn't get these lawsuits against them.
I still don't know why Apple is in violation of their 3G technology. Apple doesn't make the voice/data chips, they buy those from another supplier that licenses those patents from Samsung. What Samscum is doing sounds like double dipping on the same licensing.
I think Samsung should be banned from selling finished products that compete with their component customers. I wonder what the PC industry would do if Intel decided to market and sell their own line of desktops, servers, and laptops and just flat out sold their products cheaper than anyone since they make the processors themselves? Oh wait, isn't conflict of interest and unfair business practices?
Well, Samsung has been making mobile phones for at least two decades now, smartphone for almost a decade. So Samsung should have stuck to making their own phones while Apple should have just stuck to making pretty Mac's, is that what you are saying?
Samsung didn't make the photo gallery scrolling feature in Android, but that didn't stop Apple from taking Samsung to courts, right?
I agree, I think Apple should be banned from selling mobile devices that competes with their suppliers. Or perhaps Apple should have signed a non-compete agreement with Samsung like Dell did when Dell outsourced all their laptop manufacturing to Samsung years ago -- very unlikely considering that, again, Samsung has been in the mobile phone device biz for much longer than Apple. Oh, well, this must hurt your brain.
When the iPhone came out, it was something the world hadn't seen. Primarily, we are talking about a mulitouch screen, no keyboard, fully functioning apps, WFi, bluetooth, no stylus, etc - all in one package. it wasn't long before Android copied this success (about a year and a half). You need to take a look Samsung's "smartphones" before and after the iPhone. I owned a number of these smartphones, and they were terrible. We are talking about Windows CE devices or Java-based interfaces. Palm was actually one of the better interfaces out of all of them.
I'd like to see one of these "smartphones" that predated the iPhone. I guarantee you it doesn't hold a candle to what is consider smart today.
Samsung was the one that started the whole problem. If Samsung just stuck to making components and not trying to copy and then compete with their component customer, maybe Samsung wouldn't get these lawsuits against them.
Hey, numnuts. You do realize that Samsung was making smartphones before the iPhone came out, right?
Yeah, they were copying Blackberry and Palm though.
I'm surprised that four Senators actually did something I find worthy of their office. I won't hold my breath for a repeat performance anytime soon though.
Imagine if Toyota started making a Ford Mustang copy that, from 50 feet, you couldn't distinguish from a real Mustang. What would you say if Ford then sued Toyota? Suggest you put your anti-Apple bias aside and look at it objectively.
Maybe they should have thought about the consequences before starting a nuclear war with samsung, huh? You don't get to throw a sucker punch and then whine and play the victim after getting knocked on your butt, sorry.
[QUOTE]Hey, numnuts. You do realize that Samsung was making smartphones before the iPhone came out, right?[/QUOTE]
Ad hominem attacks weaken your argument. But that's okay, because your argument doesn't have any strength to begin with.
Yes, Samsung was making smartphones. Bad ones that nobody wanted to buy. So were a lot of people. Then the iPhone came along in 2007, and everyone's phones radically changed in design from having hardware keyboards taking up 40% of the device's face to having a capacitive touchscreen with software keyboard overnight.
To say otherwise is to ignore the stark reality that everyone (but you) recognizes.
As far as I can tell from reading through the 800 pages of evidence, and 700 page ruling, one problem is that nobody had ever paid a flat cash rate. Everyone else engaged in cross-licensing and paid little or nothing.
Well thought out post. Thank you. It seems that Apple, Samsung and the ITC have brought this down to the wire. Perhaps the ITC powers should extend to issuing FRAND rates rather than leaving to 'slow as molasses' courts. Or dissolve the ITC, as we witness the unintentional but long reaching negative effects of a ban.
Well thought out post. Thank you. It seems that Apple, Samsung and the ITC have brought this down to the wire. Perhaps the ITC powers should extend to issuing FRAND rates rather than leaving to 'slow as molasses' courts. Or dissolve the ITC, as we witness the unintentional but long reaching negative effects of a ban.
Thank you. I always study the actual sources instead of relying on fansites or blogs for second (or millionth) hand info.
We can't dissolve the ITC. It's too important for many industries. However, I think you're on the right track with the rates idea.
Perhaps there should be a separate patent court system... one that is a combination of the ITC with its judges who are highly experienced in technical IP matters, and like the Federal Courts with their power to give monetary solutions, and with the power to force arbitration like the FTC.
The interesting thing is that, paradoxically, companies usually don't want the government to set rates. At least, not automatically. Their legal briefs almost always say that they want to retain the power to engage in initial negotiations themselves. Letting the government set rates is a two-edged sword and they know it.
No sir, see above about Infineon. After the ITC ruled that Apple's devices infringed, Apple did not dispute that they owed Samsung a royalty.
However, Apple wanted it to be based only on a tiny percentage of the broadband chip price.
While that makes some sense, one problem was that ETSI royalties are not usually done that way. Secondly, using the physical chip price makes no sense, as that can go down over time, and has nothing to do with the continued value of related IP.
Ultimately, the ITC said the price was not up to Apple alone to decide, nor could they simply refuse to negotiate, nor could they claim as a defense that Samsung didn't follow ETSI FRAND rules when they themselves did not do so.
And this is essentially what lead the ITC to agree that an injunction was the proper remedy.
You do realize that Samsung was making smartphones before the iPhone came out, right?
True. To be more accurate, Samsung copied other smartphones before they copy the iPhone. And they copied to the extend of naming their smartphone BlackJack to deceive a Blackberry buyer. Sued by RIM they settled in court.
True. To be more accurate, Samsung copied other smartphones before they copy the iPhone. And they copied to the extend of naming their smartphone BlackJack to deceive a Blackberry buyer. Sued by RIM they settled in court.
Samsung uses unfair business practices since they make a lot of the components commonly found in all smartphones and the go around and copy the component customer's products. Samsung has the following information and leverage to compete unfairly.
They know what components each mfg is planning on using, what price they pay, delivery schedules and they have the ability to charge whatever they want, deliver whatever they want, hold product back if they want, etc. Wasn't Samsung trying to increase the price of processors as soon as Apple went elsewhere for certain components? I think they were increasing the cost of the processors by 20%, which is unfair pricing. It didn't cost Samsung any more to make the things, but they seem to be wanting to increase their profits to offset the losses from losing other component business.
what do you think the OEM PC mfg would do if Intel turned around and started marketing and selling PC boxes with the Intel name on it in order to undercut the competition because they make the processors and other chip sets for things like ethernet, Thunderbolt, USB, etc.?
Samsung needs to their unethical business practices and just leave the smartphone and tablet industry altogether and just make components.
Wasn't Samsung trying to increase the price of processors as soon as Apple went elsewhere for certain components? I think they were increasing the cost of the processors by 20%, which is unfair pricing.
IIRC, it turned out that the price increase had been scheduled for a while, and was agreed upon by Apple.
Apple's been negotiating parts contracts for quite a while now. I don't think they would ever set themselves up for a surprise price increase.
IIRC, it turned out that the price increase had been scheduled for a while, and was agreed upon by Apple.
Apple's been negotiating parts contracts for quite a while now. I don't think they would ever set themselves up for a surprise price increase.
When does it cost more to make a processor? It usually costs them less over time.
Of course they had to agree upon it, they have no other choice since they aren't off the shelf processors. if it's a newer processor, I can understand, but if it's just costing more for the same processor, that doesn't sound normal.
Imagine if Toyota started making a Ford Mustang copy that, from 50 feet, you couldn't distinguish from a real Mustang. What would you say if Ford then sued Toyota? Suggest you put your anti-Apple bias aside and look at it objectively.
Neither one of those phones are from Samsung, so what's your point? Here's a Palm Pilot from 2004 with rounded corners and icons. Whoo-die-doo. It's not even a smartphone.
What does any of this have to do with my pointing out that Samsung was making smartphones before Apple entered the market (like their Windows Mobile phones)?
True. To be more accurate, Samsung copied other smartphones before they copy the iPhone. And they copied to the extend of naming their smartphone BlackJack to deceive a Blackberry buyer. Sued by RIM they settled in court.
I agree 100% about their lame attempt at confusing people with the BlackJack name. Interestingly, even after the settlement, Samsung came out with the BlackJack II. Looking back, I think there was a lot of form copying going on - Moto Q/BackJack against Blackberry against Palm - lots of keyboard-equipped smartphones).
Samsung uses unfair business practices since they make a lot of the components commonly found in all smartphones and the go around and copy the component customer's products. Samsung has the following information and leverage to compete unfairly.
They know what components each mfg is planning on using, what price they pay, delivery schedules and they have the ability to charge whatever they want, deliver whatever they want, hold product back if they want, etc. Wasn't Samsung trying to increase the price of processors as soon as Apple went elsewhere for certain components? I think they were increasing the cost of the processors by 20%, which is unfair pricing. It didn't cost Samsung any more to make the things, but they seem to be wanting to increase their profits to offset the losses from losing other component business.
what do you think the OEM PC mfg would do if Intel turned around and started marketing and selling PC boxes with the Intel name on it in order to undercut the competition because they make the processors and other chip sets for things like ethernet, Thunderbolt, USB, etc.?
Samsung needs to their unethical business practices and just leave the smartphone and tablet industry altogether and just make components.
If Samsung was the only component supplier in town, then your argument would be very valid. Apple, and others, have choices as to where they source their components. As I stated earlier, Samsung has been in the smartphone market before the iPhone came out. Apple knew this and had other choices for component suppliers, and still chose to get components from Samsung.
By no means am I defending Samsung. I think the whole smartphone industry leveraged/copied/improved the early efforts of Palm and RIM.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood
But isn't this the patent where Apple said "We'll pay you a dollar tops per phone take it or leave it, if you don't take it we're going to claim you're not willing to negotiate and not pay you anything!" and then went on to tell a judge he could only set the 'fair and reasonable' rate at $1 or below and if he set it higher he was wasting his time because Apple would just drag the case out for years........
Yeah.. just keep reading hating Apple propagandas as fact and you'll be smarter. You knows.. N7 is selling better in Japan than iPad after all. :rolleyes:
(Oh.. and apparently the battery life in the new N7 is great too.. :double rolleyes: .. pathetic company. pathetic fan base.)
I tell you in the simplest manner possible. Apple want to pay "what others paid" and before that have a judge looking at "is the cost covered when they purchased said component?".
Do you think that's fair?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood
But isn't this the patent where Apple said "We'll pay you a dollar tops per phone take it or leave it, ...
No sir, that was the one between Motorola and Apple where Judge Crabb dismissed the case with prejudice. Even Foss Patents, who is usually anti-Motorola and pro-Apple, said that Apple blew a great chance to have a totally fair judge decide the rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sambira
Given that the patents in question are FRAND, this should be easy. Look at what Samsung is charging other licensees for the patents and apply that.
As far as I can tell from reading through the 800 pages of evidence, and 700 page ruling, one problem is that nobody had ever paid a flat cash rate. Everyone else engaged in cross-licensing and paid little or nothing.
Thus Samsung had to make up a starting cash rate, and it was then expected for Apple to negotiate it down. While Samsung made other offers, Apple refused to negotiate and that's why they got the ban. See the ITC statement at end of this post.
(Personally, I think that Apple should've still been given a last chance to resume negotiations or to enter abitration.)
Quote:
Also, as was stated earlier in this thread, how is Apple responsible for this if the patented areas are included in a component built by another company which probably already has the license and if they don't they would be the ones to violate the patent, unless it IS Apple who is building the component, of course.
The problem is that Infineon didn't have a Samsung license. That's why this only affects devices built before Apple switched to Qualcomm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Companies like Samsung and Motorola are using the ITC has an offensive weapon.
As does Apple. Remember that Apple got an ITC ban on certain HTC phones, which forced the latter into making a deal with Apple. It's been guessed that HTC now pays Apple $6-$8 per phone, along with having to license some of their patents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
You are right on both accounts. Apple is claiming the patents are exhausted and the license is already paid, but the ITC is not looking at that argument because that involves an agreement with a third party.
No sir, see above about Infineon. After the ITC ruled that Apple's devices infringed, Apple did not dispute that they owed Samsung a royalty.
However, Apple wanted it to be based only on a tiny percentage of the broadband chip price.
While that makes some sense, one problem was that ETSI royalties are not usually done that way. Secondly, using the physical chip price makes no sense, as that can go down over time, and has nothing to do with the continued value of related IP.
Ultimately, the ITC said the price was not up to Apple alone to decide, nor could they simply refuse to negotiate, nor could they claim as a defense that Samsung didn't follow ETSI FRAND rules when they themselves did not do so.
Quote:
"The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the evidence does not support Apple’s allegation that Sarnsung failed to offer Apple licenses to Samsung’s declared-essential patents on FRAND terms. Patents have the attributes of personal property. 35 U.S.C. § 261. Their value, in terms of licensing, varies according to a myriad of factors, and it is not enough for Apple to say that Samsung’s license offer was unreasonable based on Apple’s rationale.
"Remarkably, even though Apple complains that Samsung’s license offer was not FRAND, Apple has not shown that, as a member to ETSI, it ever availed itself of the process and procedures of the ETSI under Clause 4.3 of the ETSI Guide on IPRs, which provides for mediation by ETSI Members or the Secretariat. (RX-0713 at Clause 4.3.)
"It is not enough for Apple to complain that Samsung’s license offer of 2.4 percent of the selling prices of Apple’s devices, is unreasonable, since there is insufficient evidence of customs and practices of industry participants showing that Samsung’s demand is invidious with respect to Apple.
"Furthermore, negotiations often involve a process of offer and counteroffer before the parties arrive at an agreed price, but Apple’s evidence does not demonstrate that Apple put forth a sincere, bona tide effort to bargain with Samsung. Rather, it appears that Apple and Samsung both decided to negotiate licensing terms between each other through the tortuous, and expensive, process of litigation.
"More than what has been cited by Apple is necessary in order to establish that Samsung violated its obligations under Clause 6.1 of Annex 6: ETSI Intellectual Property Rights Policy. More than that, Apple needs to establish a legal basis for foreclosing enforcement under Section 337 in this investigation, which Apple has not done."
- ITC case 337-794
Again, I think a ban was too strong, but that's the only power the ITC has. Therefore it was an easy prediction that they would continue to use them in FRAND cases, no matter what the FTC had suggested.
If the Executive Branch does not override the ruling, the next step will be Apple filing with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which they've already indicated they will do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
Ignorance is bliss, you must be completely blissful.
Samsung was the one that started the whole problem. If Samsung just stuck to making components and not trying to copy and then compete with their component customer, maybe Samsung wouldn't get these lawsuits against them.
I still don't know why Apple is in violation of their 3G technology. Apple doesn't make the voice/data chips, they buy those from another supplier that licenses those patents from Samsung. What Samscum is doing sounds like double dipping on the same licensing.
I think Samsung should be banned from selling finished products that compete with their component customers. I wonder what the PC industry would do if Intel decided to market and sell their own line of desktops, servers, and laptops and just flat out sold their products cheaper than anyone since they make the processors themselves? Oh wait, isn't conflict of interest and unfair business practices?
Well, Samsung has been making mobile phones for at least two decades now, smartphone for almost a decade. So Samsung should have stuck to making their own phones while Apple should have just stuck to making pretty Mac's, is that what you are saying?
Samsung didn't make the photo gallery scrolling feature in Android, but that didn't stop Apple from taking Samsung to courts, right?
I agree, I think Apple should be banned from selling mobile devices that competes with their suppliers. Or perhaps Apple should have signed a non-compete agreement with Samsung like Dell did when Dell outsourced all their laptop manufacturing to Samsung years ago -- very unlikely considering that, again, Samsung has been in the mobile phone device biz for much longer than Apple. Oh, well, this must hurt your brain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everett Ruess
Maybe America should be a bit like China and the rest of the world & protect their countries businesses
And Samsung would be #1 smartphone maker in the US -- just like China.
When the iPhone came out, it was something the world hadn't seen. Primarily, we are talking about a mulitouch screen, no keyboard, fully functioning apps, WFi, bluetooth, no stylus, etc - all in one package. it wasn't long before Android copied this success (about a year and a half). You need to take a look Samsung's "smartphones" before and after the iPhone. I owned a number of these smartphones, and they were terrible. We are talking about Windows CE devices or Java-based interfaces. Palm was actually one of the better interfaces out of all of them.
I'd like to see one of these "smartphones" that predated the iPhone. I guarantee you it doesn't hold a candle to what is consider smart today.
delete me
Quote:
Originally Posted by runbuh
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
Samsung was the one that started the whole problem. If Samsung just stuck to making components and not trying to copy and then compete with their component customer, maybe Samsung wouldn't get these lawsuits against them.
Hey, numnuts. You do realize that Samsung was making smartphones before the iPhone came out, right?
Yeah, they were copying Blackberry and Palm though.
I'm surprised that four Senators actually did something I find worthy of their office. I won't hold my breath for a repeat performance anytime soon though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by runbuh
Hey, numnuts. You do realize that Samsung was making smartphones before the iPhone came out, right?
Sure they were, and they looked like this:
http://macdailynews.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/120719_android_before_after_iphone.jpg
Notice anything?
Imagine if Toyota started making a Ford Mustang copy that, from 50 feet, you couldn't distinguish from a real Mustang. What would you say if Ford then sued Toyota? Suggest you put your anti-Apple bias aside and look at it objectively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907
Maybe they should have thought about the consequences before starting a nuclear war with samsung, huh? You don't get to throw a sucker punch and then whine and play the victim after getting knocked on your butt, sorry.
That is not quite how it happened. Be serious.
Ad hominem attacks weaken your argument. But that's okay, because your argument doesn't have any strength to begin with.
Yes, Samsung was making smartphones. Bad ones that nobody wanted to buy. So were a lot of people. Then the iPhone came along in 2007, and everyone's phones radically changed in design from having hardware keyboards taking up 40% of the device's face to having a capacitive touchscreen with software keyboard overnight.
To say otherwise is to ignore the stark reality that everyone (but you) recognizes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
As far as I can tell from reading through the 800 pages of evidence, and 700 page ruling, one problem is that nobody had ever paid a flat cash rate. Everyone else engaged in cross-licensing and paid little or nothing.
Well thought out post. Thank you. It seems that Apple, Samsung and the ITC have brought this down to the wire. Perhaps the ITC powers should extend to issuing FRAND rates rather than leaving to 'slow as molasses' courts. Or dissolve the ITC, as we witness the unintentional but long reaching negative effects of a ban.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeJay2012
Well thought out post. Thank you. It seems that Apple, Samsung and the ITC have brought this down to the wire. Perhaps the ITC powers should extend to issuing FRAND rates rather than leaving to 'slow as molasses' courts. Or dissolve the ITC, as we witness the unintentional but long reaching negative effects of a ban.
Thank you. I always study the actual sources instead of relying on fansites or blogs for second (or millionth) hand info.
We can't dissolve the ITC. It's too important for many industries. However, I think you're on the right track with the rates idea.
Perhaps there should be a separate patent court system... one that is a combination of the ITC with its judges who are highly experienced in technical IP matters, and like the Federal Courts with their power to give monetary solutions, and with the power to force arbitration like the FTC.
The interesting thing is that, paradoxically, companies usually don't want the government to set rates. At least, not automatically. Their legal briefs almost always say that they want to retain the power to engage in initial negotiations themselves. Letting the government set rates is a two-edged sword and they know it.
And this is essentially what lead the ITC to agree that an injunction was the proper remedy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by runbuh
You do realize that Samsung was making smartphones before the iPhone came out, right?
True. To be more accurate, Samsung copied other smartphones before they copy the iPhone. And they copied to the extend of naming their smartphone BlackJack to deceive a Blackberry buyer. Sued by RIM they settled in court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by r1sko
True. To be more accurate, Samsung copied other smartphones before they copy the iPhone. And they copied to the extend of naming their smartphone BlackJack to deceive a Blackberry buyer. Sued by RIM they settled in court.
Samsung uses unfair business practices since they make a lot of the components commonly found in all smartphones and the go around and copy the component customer's products. Samsung has the following information and leverage to compete unfairly.
They know what components each mfg is planning on using, what price they pay, delivery schedules and they have the ability to charge whatever they want, deliver whatever they want, hold product back if they want, etc. Wasn't Samsung trying to increase the price of processors as soon as Apple went elsewhere for certain components? I think they were increasing the cost of the processors by 20%, which is unfair pricing. It didn't cost Samsung any more to make the things, but they seem to be wanting to increase their profits to offset the losses from losing other component business.
what do you think the OEM PC mfg would do if Intel turned around and started marketing and selling PC boxes with the Intel name on it in order to undercut the competition because they make the processors and other chip sets for things like ethernet, Thunderbolt, USB, etc.?
Samsung needs to their unethical business practices and just leave the smartphone and tablet industry altogether and just make components.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
Wasn't Samsung trying to increase the price of processors as soon as Apple went elsewhere for certain components? I think they were increasing the cost of the processors by 20%, which is unfair pricing.
IIRC, it turned out that the price increase had been scheduled for a while, and was agreed upon by Apple.
Apple's been negotiating parts contracts for quite a while now. I don't think they would ever set themselves up for a surprise price increase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
IIRC, it turned out that the price increase had been scheduled for a while, and was agreed upon by Apple.
Apple's been negotiating parts contracts for quite a while now. I don't think they would ever set themselves up for a surprise price increase.
When does it cost more to make a processor? It usually costs them less over time.
Of course they had to agree upon it, they have no other choice since they aren't off the shelf processors. if it's a newer processor, I can understand, but if it's just costing more for the same processor, that doesn't sound normal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wings
Sure they were, and they looked like this:
http://macdailynews.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/120719_android_before_after_iphone.jpg
Notice anything?
Imagine if Toyota started making a Ford Mustang copy that, from 50 feet, you couldn't distinguish from a real Mustang. What would you say if Ford then sued Toyota? Suggest you put your anti-Apple bias aside and look at it objectively.
Neither one of those phones are from Samsung, so what's your point? Here's a Palm Pilot from 2004 with rounded corners and icons. Whoo-die-doo. It's not even a smartphone.
http://www.mobile-review.com/print.php?filename=/pda/review/palm-tungsten-t5-en.shtml
What does any of this have to do with my pointing out that Samsung was making smartphones before Apple entered the market (like their Windows Mobile phones)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by r1sko
True. To be more accurate, Samsung copied other smartphones before they copy the iPhone. And they copied to the extend of naming their smartphone BlackJack to deceive a Blackberry buyer. Sued by RIM they settled in court.
I agree 100% about their lame attempt at confusing people with the BlackJack name. Interestingly, even after the settlement, Samsung came out with the BlackJack II. Looking back, I think there was a lot of form copying going on - Moto Q/BackJack against Blackberry against Palm - lots of keyboard-equipped smartphones).
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
Samsung uses unfair business practices since they make a lot of the components commonly found in all smartphones and the go around and copy the component customer's products. Samsung has the following information and leverage to compete unfairly.
They know what components each mfg is planning on using, what price they pay, delivery schedules and they have the ability to charge whatever they want, deliver whatever they want, hold product back if they want, etc. Wasn't Samsung trying to increase the price of processors as soon as Apple went elsewhere for certain components? I think they were increasing the cost of the processors by 20%, which is unfair pricing. It didn't cost Samsung any more to make the things, but they seem to be wanting to increase their profits to offset the losses from losing other component business.
what do you think the OEM PC mfg would do if Intel turned around and started marketing and selling PC boxes with the Intel name on it in order to undercut the competition because they make the processors and other chip sets for things like ethernet, Thunderbolt, USB, etc.?
Samsung needs to their unethical business practices and just leave the smartphone and tablet industry altogether and just make components.
If Samsung was the only component supplier in town, then your argument would be very valid. Apple, and others, have choices as to where they source their components. As I stated earlier, Samsung has been in the smartphone market before the iPhone came out. Apple knew this and had other choices for component suppliers, and still chose to get components from Samsung.
By no means am I defending Samsung. I think the whole smartphone industry leveraged/copied/improved the early efforts of Palm and RIM.