Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple and Samsung Ordered Talks Fail - Trial Date Set

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the off-to-court dept.

Patents 165

Fluffeh writes "Apple and Samsung just can't come to an agreement, even when the two CEOs have been ordered by a court to hash it out over a two-day period. U.S. Judge Judy Koh had ordered the sit down prior to court proceedings between the two giants, but the talks resulted in nothing more than each side confirming its position. Although Apple CEO Tim Cook said, 'I've always hated litigation and I continue to hate it,' he also said, 'if we could get to some kind of arrangement where we'd be assured [they are inventing their own products] and get a fair settlement on the stuff that's occurred.' Perhaps Tim is worried that Samsung is still the primary component supplier for mobile products, including the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch, or perhaps Apple has bitten off more than it really wants to chew, with the litigation between the two getting to truly epic and global proportions."

cancel ×

165 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fuck Apple (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40096177)

Git'em, Sammy!

I suspect there are more to meet the eyes (1, Informative)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096509)

While the world media headlines are blaring "Apple sues Samsung" or "Samsung sues Apple", Apples is providing Samsung more one billion U. S. dollars to keep Samsung's Austin, Texas fab in operation

There is more than meets the eyes

Re:I suspect there are more to meet the eyes (5, Insightful)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096787)

While the world media headlines are blaring "Apple sues Samsung" or "Samsung sues Apple", Apples is providing Samsung more one billion U. S. dollars to keep Samsung's Austin, Texas fab in operation

So what is your point? That Samsung should be so grateful to Apple for choosing them as a supplier of parts that they stop competing with Apple in other markets? If that is how things work then all Microsoft has to do is buy a billion dollars worth of Macs and Apple will drop the iPhone so they don't compete with Windows Mobile phones.

The fact that these massive companies can do business with each other on one hand while filing lawsuits with the other hand is not unusual. It is as relevant to this story as them both having members of staff named Eric.

It is possible that misunderstood your point. If that is the case then please tell us what possible scenario you had in mind when you said that you suspected that there is more than meets the eye? That Apple has paid Samsung to be its whipping boy so they can look like dicks when they sue them for using rounded corners? Or perhaps Apple are using this dispute to renegotiate their other contracts with Samsung. Or maybe it is all just to fill up newspaper columns so that journalists don't start talking about the other players in this area like Microsoft or Blackberry. (If the last one is true then it certainly worked!)

Re:I suspect there are more to meet the eyes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40098275)

So what is your point? That Samsung should be so grateful to Apple for choosing them as a supplier of parts that they stop copying Apple in exactly the same market?

FTFY.

Re:I suspect there are more to meet the eyes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40098285)

Still not a valid point. Big business just doesn't work that way.

Re:I suspect there are more to meet the eyes (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096945)

Uhhh...not there isn't, this is just SOP when it comes to large corps. Look at how when AMD was suing Intel neither company tried to screw up their cross licensing agreements.

The problem friend is you are looking at this like how a person looks at it, where they don't go to court unless they hate someone or they were fucked over and they go to court because they can't do what they REALLY want to do which is go stomp the shit out of the other person.

Whereas the big corps often treat courts like a referee when there is a dispute. It doesn't mean they are gonna quit playing the game, it just means they need a ruling on the field. At the end of the day Samsung has parts that Apple wants and they aren't about to give up those parts and hamstring themselves just to go "Fuck you!" to Samsung. its not like cutting off that money would break Samsung anyway, they got plenty of others to buy from them, all it would do is hurt both in the short term, and probably Apple more considering how hot their consumer devices are ATM. It would be idiotic for Apple to screw up their supply line so they won't, simple as that. I bet after the ruling both companies will just go on like it never happened, that's just the way it works friend.

Re:I suspect there are more to meet the eyes (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#40097439)

Perhaps it would be better if Samsung DID threaten to stop selling to Apple. Perhaps Apple would then sit down and talk in earnest without all the crazy court action. Perhaps instead of countersuing, everyone sued by Apple should refuse to sell/license to them.

Re:I suspect there are more to meet the eyes (5, Insightful)

quasipunk guy (88280) | more than 2 years ago | (#40097607)

Samsung has a lot to lose by alienating Apple. Apple is a huge customer, very few organizations buy in the volumes that Apple works with. Losing a big account would suck, but Apple pouring billions of dollars into Samsung's competitors to improve their manufacturing technology will make a large impact on Samsung's ability to compete.

Also consider that Apple's order volume enables Samsung to run their factories at higher capacity, reducing overall operating costs by reducing or eliminating downtime. In some cases this could mean that a factory would not be able to operate profitably. Could Samsung's US fab maintain their price points and sustain their infrastructure development plans without Apple as a customer? I have no idea but it doesn't seem like an obvious answer.

Re:I suspect there are more to meet the eyes (3, Insightful)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 2 years ago | (#40097625)

I'm not an expert on business law, but I'm pretty sure there are laws in place in most countries preventing exactly that from happening. This isn't to say I support them being unable to tell Apple to fuck off arbitrarily, but I'm thinking that's not exactly an option for them.

Re:I suspect there are more to meet the eyes (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#40097819)

They may not be able to refuse outright, but there are the small matters of production volume and customer priority. "OH! Sorry, we're fresh out, try back in 30 days!"

Re:I suspect there are more to meet the eyes (2)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 2 years ago | (#40098255)

It's all about the contracts.

When you buy small ammounts goods/services from a big company you typically get a very one sided contract where they have the power to cancel your order at any time for any or no reason whatsoever with no penalty.

When two big companies sign a contract for major supply that contract will almost certainly specify the ammount to be supplied and have steep penalty clauses if either company wants to back out of their obligations. So cancelling a contract just because the other party sues you may be a very expensive course of action to take.

There will be contracts (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40097923)

The argument "We are litigating about X so we can void contracts about Y" doesn't work in court.

Re:I suspect there are more to meet the eyes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40098007)

To a huge corporation like Samsung, a billion dollars is chump change.

Re:Fuck Apple (-1, Troll)

tyrione (134248) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096925)

Git'em, Sammy!

Suck on it Sammy!

Yeah, no surprises (5, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096191)

It's like when we were kids and my sister and I would fight. My mom would tell us to "settle it yourselves, or I'm going to settle it for you!" Mom always ended up having to settle it because each of us knew we were right and refused to find middle ground.

Of course, looking back - I was the one who was right, and my sister was wrong.

Re:Yeah, no surprises (5, Insightful)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096473)

I would LOVE to see a judge walk out, call the CEOs to the bench, grab them both by the ear and yell "PLAY NICE OR I'LL TAKE BOTH YOUR TOYS AWAY" and then dismiss these ridiculous lawsuits.

Re:Yeah, (take away the toys (patents))! (4, Insightful)

neurocutie (677249) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096573)

I would LOVE to see a judge walk out, call the CEOs to the bench, grab them both by the ear and yell "PLAY NICE OR I'LL TAKE BOTH YOUR TOYS AWAY" and then dismiss these ridiculous lawsuits.

Dismissal? What the judge should do is take away both set of patents!

Re:Yeah, (take away the toys (patents))! (0)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096611)

I would LOVE to see a judge walk out, call the CEOs to the bench, grab them both by the ear and yell "PLAY NICE OR I'LL TAKE BOTH YOUR TOYS AWAY" and then dismiss these ridiculous lawsuits.

Dismissal? What the judge should do is take away both set of patents!

If I have mod points, I would mod you up !!

Re:Yeah, (take away the toys (patents))! (5, Informative)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096969)

Dismissal? What the judge should do is take away both set of patents!

That would hurt Samsung more than it would hurt Apple.

Because Samsung's patents are FRAND, and by taking it away, it means everyone who implements a cellphone (ANY cellphone) no longer has to negotiate with Samsung on those patents.

Apple's patents are design dress patents, which have a much shorter life (5 years), and really cover a specific design of product. If you wonder why companies periodically change the design of long-running products, it's usually because their design patents are about to expire, and the design isn't iconic enough to apply for a trademark (e.g., the shape of the Coca-Cola bottle IS trademarked, and it's why only Coke comes in those bottle designs).

Of course, the two sides can never come to an agreement - Apple knows Samsung's patents are FRAND, and since they're essential to implement a cellphone, believes they already got a license through purchase of Qualcomm chips. (Basically, Apple buys chips from Qualcomm, of which part of the price of those chips is used to pay for the patents paid to Samsung etc.). Samsung believes Apple should still pay, akin to the recording/videogame industry saying if you buy a CD/game secondhand, you still owe them money. Whether or not that is true, is up to bunch of agreements between Samsung, Qualcomm and Apple.

Apple's beef with Samsung is the design of their tablets, and Samsung believes they're distinct enough ("we don't let lawyers design our products"). Since it's not an FRAND issue, Apple values part of the whole Apple Experience(tm) is the product design and thus values it highly.

And it's also why Apple's push for nano-sim will never succeed. Even if Apple gives away patent licenses to anyone who asks for whatever terms they want. Nokia and RIM are opposing Apple purely because if Apple gets a patent into the FRAND pool, it means Apple pays a lot less money to them for their FRAND patents. Apple's got the money and everyone wants some of it, and they definitely do not want Apple getting their patents into the standard at all. Even if Apple's implementation is techically superior to Nokia and RIM's design - they will vote for an inferior standard in order to keep the Apple goldmine coming.

Re:Yeah, (take away the toys (patents))! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40097235)

Hang about. Don't Samsung want Apple to simply pay up for the time period BEFORE they started using patent-paying Qualcomm chips (and they're both arguing about how much that should be - with Apple being at the "nothing, get stuffed" end of the scale and Samsung the other) ?

Re:Yeah, (take away the toys (patents))! (4, Informative)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40097917)

There's no such thing as "design dress patents".

Are you perhaps conflating trade dress and design patents?

P.S. How can something blatantly false be at +5 informative?

Re:Yeah, (take away the toys (patents))! (5, Informative)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 2 years ago | (#40098065)

Because Samsung's patents are FRAND, and by taking it away, it means everyone who implements a cellphone (ANY cellphone) no longer has to negotiate with Samsung on those patents.

The fact that the patents are FRAND patents means there should be zero negotiations involved in licensing the patents. It should simply be "the price we charge everyone is x% - that's your price too." Done. That's it. That's the point of a FRAND patent. That is Fair, Reasonable, And Non Discriminatory - FRAND. Any attempt to negotiate a different rate with different companies is the exact opposite of FRAND terms,

And that's why Samsung is in the wrong - they are attempting to get more from Apple than they do from other companies. That is not Fair, Reasonable, and certainly not Non Discriminatory.

Re:Yeah, (take away the toys (patents))! (1)

MrDoh! (71235) | more than 2 years ago | (#40098091)

Not a lawyer here, but isn't that WHEN the rate is offered, you can't charge crazy amounts? Is there something that FORCES you to sell to your competitor?
ie, to stop FRAND applying, simple telling Apple 'sorry, we don't want you as a customer for our patents' is the thing the sammy lawyers are arguing here?

Re:Yeah, (take away the toys (patents))! (5, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 2 years ago | (#40098109)

Is there something that FORCES you to sell to your competitor?

Yes. Non Discriminatory. Anyone offering a FRAND patent (typically a patent that has been accepted into an industry standard) _MUST_ license the patent to anyone and everyone who is interested in licensing it at a Fair and Reasonable rate. Almost always this means that the license rate is lower than a non-FRAND patent would garner but the idea is that you make up the money due to the fact that everyone who wants to participate in that industry standard must license from you - you make it up in volume. But, yes, they MUST license to anyone and everyone, even if they don't want to.

Fair, Reasonable And Non Discriminatory. FRAND.

Re:Yeah, (take away the toys (patents))! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40098297)

That would apply had Apple paid the licensing fee when it was due, but the money that Samsung has sought from Apple over those patents for devices already sold. FRAND doesn't apply AFAIK to units that were shipped without paying the appropriate royalties.

It's perfectly reasonable to demand more money when a company has been infringing on the IP. Now, if there are other companies that have sued Samsung that weren't paying their licensing fees that aren't being treated as such, that might not be fair or non-discriminatory.

Re:Yeah, (take away the toys (patents))! (5, Informative)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 2 years ago | (#40098315)

Samsung licensed the patents to Qualcomm who sold the chips to Apple. Apple is arguing that Samsung is attempting to double-dip - Apple already paid the license fee by purchasing the chips from a company who paid Samsung for the license.

Re:Yeah, no surprises (5, Insightful)

Rik Rohl (1399705) | more than 2 years ago | (#40097357)

What the judge needs to do is issue a global injunction to both companies preventing them from shipping any tablets until the entire legal process is finished, including any appeals. That'd get them both talking real quick.

Pity that can't happen.

Except isn't his or her job (3, Insightful)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40097943)

Commercial cases like this between big companies is exactly what the law is supposed to do. When negotiation breaks down, the next level is litigation in which a third party (judge) assesses the case based on expert interpretation of the evidence. In non-civilised societies that next level doesn't exist and commercial disputes are dealt with with weapons. Recourse to the law is a sign that at least one party is unreasonable, but it is better than the alternative.

Re:Except isn't his or her job (2)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#40098049)

Counterpoint: I'd rather be stabbed in the spleen than give money to a lawyer.

Re:Yeah, no surprises (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40096495)

Just a wild guess here, but have you authored history books for Texas public schools?

Re:Yeah, no surprises (2)

Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096711)

My mother used to decide who was right and compel the other to backdate royalty payments then give a percentage of any future sales. If we still didn't agree, we could appeal to a superior parent - Grandma.

Grammar Nazi (2, Insightful)

schitso (2541028) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096213)

"each side confirming it's position"
Is this what the world has come to?

Re:Grammar Nazi (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40096507)

You are of course referring to your insatiable need to actually post such a correction?

Re:Grammar Nazi (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40096723)

What's wrong with confirming it's position? At least they could both agree on it being position.

Re:Grammar Nazi (1, Flamebait)

Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) | more than 2 years ago | (#40097007)

Slightly off topic, but 'Grammar Nazi' almost makes me believe the Grammar Hague is run by 16 year olds with mobile phones.

Re:Grammar Nazi (0)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40097935)

"each side confirming it's position" Is this what the world has come to?

Well, sides generally are positions, like being to the left or being to the right. You're being a Semantic Nazi.

(Anyway, I don't understand why the Americans always lump everything into "grammar". This looks more like orthography to me. You have grammar without writing when you're doing something called "speech". There are no apostrophes in language as such, though there are some in writing.)

Re:Grammar Nazi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40098353)

Its clearly a spelling error rather than a grammar error. And they lump it in there because their deranged half wits that dont have anything better do.

The Answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40096225)

This is precisely what courts are for. Applying rough justice to intractable parties. It's working. Now make it 90% cheaper in the future with vastly expanded pre-trial provisions of and rulings on evidence and legal theories.

JJ

"more that it wants to chew" (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096327)

When you have as much money as Apple there is very little it cannot gnaw upon.

That said, all of these lawsuits are getting silly and hopefully ALL of the companies going into multiple lawsuit gyrations these days settle down.

Re:"more that it wants to chew" (3, Insightful)

ATMAvatar (648864) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096581)

In any normal case, that would be true. But as Samsung is the major (still only?) supplier of screens for the iPad3, the relationship is more complicated. Tim Cook isn't taking his current position because he really hates lawsuits. He's taking it because he figures that even if Apple wins the legal battles against Samsung outright, it could still end up a Pyrrhic victory.

Re:"more that it wants to chew" (3, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 2 years ago | (#40098083)

If Samsung was so stupid as to cut off their largest customer, that would truly be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Samsung has a bottom line to watch out for as well and the billions of dollars that Apple directs their way is a significant portion of Samsung's balance sheet. No sane company is going to throw that away out of spite.

Re:"more that it wants to chew" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40096597)

You would think they would be happy, with regard to the design patent suits, particularly given Jonathon Ive's statement about Apple's designs:
“We try to develop products that seem somehow inevitable. That leave you with the sense that that’s the only possible solution that makes sense,” he explains.
iMore [imore.com]
Since that appears to be working they are now complaining about it, as though it's a case of we did it "right", and we did it right "first" so now everyone else must continue to do it wrong.
Realistically if you were going to buy an iphone but didn't know what it was, only knew vaguely what it looks like and weren't even sure why you wanted one then potentially you could accidentally buy a galaxy instead (if you didn't ask for it by name). But even then if you actually hold them in your hand or use them you can tell immediately that they are very different. Yes they look similar (well the old iphone and old galaxy do, not any more) but given the design goals it seems that's highly likely to happen unless you intend to be different for the sake of it.

Apple got there first in most respects - at least pre-iOS5 - and they have a great product with great brand loyalty and great market share, what more do they need? What is the damage that is actually being done to warrant all of this? Designs have since changed so are they really still holding on to this?

Re:"more that it wants to chew" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40096669)

Let's say you have a girlfriend (yeah, use your imagination). You spend years wining and dining her, listening to her talk about dumb girl shit, save up for a ring and marry her. Then on your wedding night, after you pop her cherry, a gang of koreans come in and run train on her. I guess you're the kind of guy that would just stand around with his dick in his hand while that happens.

Re:"more that it wants to chew" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40097175)

lol...typical apple fagboi, equating an iphone to a woman...sad cunt.

No not necessarily (3, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096717)

If everything went absolutely against Apple in all cases (not likely but just saying) they could wind up with a ton of money but nothing to do and no easy ability to make more. I mean if Apple had a situation where their products were ruled to be violating other companies' patents, and other companies wouldn't license them, plus suppliers stopped working with Apple (Samsung is a big supplier of parts like their screens) they would have a situation of nothing to sell.

Money doesn't solve that. In the long run it could solve a supplier issue as they could build their own production lines, but that takes quite a bit of time and still wouldn't solve patent issues. If the patents are fairly trivial, sure they could work around them, however if they are more fundamental to mobile phone operation or the like they might be fucked.

I don't see that as likely but don't make the mistake of thinking that lots of money can solve the problem. Apple is likely going to have to learn to play nice with others.

Re:No not necessarily (1)

Tough Love (215404) | more than 2 years ago | (#40097205)

If everything went absolutely against Apple... they would have a situation of nothing to sell. Money doesn't solve that.

Right, in that case the most sensible decision would be to wind the company up and take the cash before it evaporates as it did with Sun for example. And if you think that's actually likely to happen some time in the future, or something close to it, then your smartest move is to sell now while the stock is worth more than the cash and let somebody else hold that bag.

Re:"more that it wants to chew" (0, Troll)

SurfsUp (11523) | more than 2 years ago | (#40097189)

When you have as much money as Apple there is very little it cannot gnaw upon.

True, and when you are as greedy and morally challenged as Apple is, that is bad news for society in general.

True but who depends on the other more? (5, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#40097645)

Samsung can answer the question "You and what army of killer robots". Apple can answer the question "You and what army of hipsters who are to worried about their lattes to ever make a stand for anything". I know which one I would be more afraid to anger.

People forget that Samsung is an old fashioned giant, it may not have as much cash but it has business in nearly everything under the sun. Anything from ships to military to the chips that Apple so desperately needs. Samsung could loose all its mobile income tomorrow and it easily survive on everything else with full backing of the Korean government and its US military customers. Apple would be bankrupt and torn to shreds by its share holders and nobody has any incentive to keep it going. The world needs Samsung as a supplier, Apple? Nah.

It is what happens when you outsource all your actual production, just in time delivery sounds nice, but it means your suppliers own you once they realize this themselves. GOOD just in time delivery makes certain that you have a choice of suppliers and that none of them can survive without your business. Samsung can EASILY survive without and in fact, if they stop shipping to Apple, they kill a major competitor to their own products.

And if you think Apple can just go to someone else... they are all asian giants to. All of who would be perfectly happy to see Apple die and take over its business.

A lot of business stability exists because the status quo is just easier to keep. But Apple upset that, when you stir the calm waters, the sharks surface.

Grammar (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40096349)

Its, its, a thousand times ITS!

Re:Grammar (-1, Troll)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096353)

Communication need not be bound by protocol for information exchange to occur. STFU

Re:Grammar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40096379)

Language isn't just 1's and 0's you over-simplifier. There's this thing called meaning.

Re:Grammar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40096437)

Depends on how sensitive the communication is to errors. Mistakes can change meanings. Misunderstandings have led to wars.

Re:Grammar (-1, Flamebait)

Alunral (2477578) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096659)

A thousand times over, NO ONE GIVES A SHIT

Re:Grammar (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40096781)

"A thousand times over, NO ONE GIVES A SHIT"

You're wrong.

Stupid people like you don't give a shit.

Smart people do give a shit. You do know smart people don't you ?

They are the people you call "boss", and they are where your paycheck
comes from. And they are in a higher position than you are precisely
because they DID give a shit and learned how to communicate well.

Even smarter people understand meaning. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40098131)

And don't get all het up about typographical errors when the meaning is completely clear.

This isn't an English Lit class, dimdick.

id like to invite these people to wake up (0, Offtopic)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096363)

there is this thing called 'thingiverse', and another thing called 'grabcad', and another thing called 'shapeways', they are your death knell.

what you do is not hard. its not difficult. its not even that special. volunteers on the internet can do what you do, and they can do it better, and they can do it for free. the only thing you have is hordes of factory wage slaves who live under a dictatorship. that can do alot, but it can only do so much for your bottom line.

ask yourself. why would someone support a system where they themselves are not included? why would someone want to support a property regime where they themselves are de-facto excluded from owning property? why care about the morality of privacy when you have to work every day under a boss who beats and harasses his workers and have only enough money to eat and live at the end of years of labor?

why?

it is incredibly obvious that the world as it is, organized into the few who have, and the billions who do not, is unsustainable. the earth cannot survive like this. you represent the catholic church at the dawn of the renaissance. you represent the barons at the dawn of democracy. you represent slave owners on the eve of the civil war. you are going to go away and lose everything you have. nobody is going to take it from you. its just that the world is going to change overnight, and you will be left adrift in a strange place you no longer understand, that follows rules you no longer create.

i am only warning you of this for the good of you and your families. find new work before you are unemployed and have to learn what the masses you drive by every day on your way to the office have to deal with in order to survive.

Lots of problems with that missive (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096489)

what you do is not hard. its not difficult. its not even that special.

Actually, that is AMAZINGLY untrue. What Apple and Samsung both do is make products that have many, many finely crafted parts, between both software and hardware. I would say in fact that BOTH companies are special, the products they are producing are light years ahead of what open source hardware designs could produce, and even the software is polished well beyond what open source is capable of.

why would someone support a system where they themselves are not included?

I don't think you understand the people working at large companies, certainly not at Apple. The thing is they ARE included, at least in part. They work under a lot of stress knowing the things they work on go to millions.

it is incredibly obvious that the world as it is, organized into the few who have, and the billions who do not, is unsustainable.

Your only other option is billions who have even less than the poor today. Would you really prefer that system? I would not, but I know some wish for the destruction of humanity, for us to grovel in the dirt like pigs. No thanks say I, humans should be shining like the amazing end result of evolution that they are. To pretend anything else is natural is to ignore human nature, all of history and just plain common sense.

Re:Lots of problems with that missive (1)

Barlo_Mung_42 (411228) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096569)

>humans should be shining like the amazing end result of evolution that they are.

I was with you up until that sentence. Evolution does not have a direction or an end result. Considering how rare our kind of intelligence is, it's not even clear that it has lasting evolutionary value and long after we are gone bacteria will continue doing its thing.

Re:Lots of problems with that missive (1)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096735)

No, it's correct to say end result, just not *final* result.

Re:Lots of problems with that missive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40096995)

Unless you're a Mayan

Re:Lots of problems with that missive (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40097587)

Evolution does not have a direction or an end result.

Of course evolution has a direction. It is always optimizing for conditions, and humans ended up being the creatures that could fit in any niche. Once that optimization was found, game over basically.

Some people want humans to be no better than other animals but plainly that is false due to the success humanity has enjoyed across the globe. You cannot undo that. No other species could even evolve at this point to take our position unless we let them or leave.

Really? (2)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40097979)

Our success is due to the exploitation of resources. If those resources fail, game up. The human race very nearly went extinct in the Mesolithic. Don't think it could not happen again.

No other species could even evolve at this point

Except that it wouldn't be at this point, and it doesn't have to be a single species. Evolution presumes the passage of time. Already bacteria are evolving that are resistant to all our known antibiotics. And as Jay Gould observed, from the point of view of life on Earth as a whole, the dominant life form on Earth is still the bacteria.

Incidentally (3, Informative)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40097989)

I know I shouldn't reply to myself. But my sig actually exemplifies my comment. Written by Tennyson in 1844, before The Origin of Species, it reflects his sudden realisation of the implications of fossils of species that no longer exist - that "Nature" (as it was called at the time) has no interest at all in the survival of any particular species. His "no not one" is his further realisation that this includes us.

It's a bad state of affairs when a significant number of people in developed English speaking countries have a worse understanding of biology than a poet writing before Darwin published.

Re:Lots of problems with that missive (1)

unapersson (38207) | more than 2 years ago | (#40098043)

We could undo that. "How about a nice game of chess?"

Re:Lots of problems with that missive (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#40097503)

Actually, that is AMAZINGLY untrue. What Apple and Samsung both do is make products that have many, many finely crafted parts, between both software and hardware. I would say in fact that BOTH companies are special, the products they are producing are light years ahead of what open source hardware designs could produce, and even the software is polished well beyond what open source is capable of.

They are light years ahead of what open source designs could produce under the current system

That's not really surprising given that the current system greatly favors the few over the many and the power of open source is the many.

Of course the same thing was said about the several very expensive Unix OSes compared to the free ones. We kept hearing about how Linux and *BSD were 'interesting' but were and always would be mere toys compared to SCO, Solaris, AIX, etc. Right up to the point that the free OSes took over the Unix world.

I don't think you understand the people working at large companies, certainly not at Apple. The thing is they ARE included, at least in part. They work under a lot of stress knowing the things they work on go to millions.

To be included, they would have to enjoy significant personal ownership of the resulting design. They don't.

Re:Lots of problems with that missive (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40097577)

To be included, they would have to enjoy significant personal ownership of the resulting design

You have a different definition of inclusion than any talented person I have ever known.

People don't really CARE if they own something, they care if others use what they have built.

Re:Lots of problems with that missive (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#40097865)

They care about more than that. Can J. Random engineer at Apple produce his own variant where his ideas are implemented rather than rejected by marketing? Only if he is an owner. Otherwise he ends up in court for stealing Apple's "valuable intellectual property". Does he get to decide if he contributes? No, he can decide not to but people who can't design products themselves decide if he can.

Re:id like to invite these people to wake up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40096503)

Have you priced 3d printers lately or those special plastic spools they need? They aren't cheap.

Re:id like to invite these people to wake up (2)

Telvin_3d (855514) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096537)

Rated -1 "Fails to grasp basic economies of scale".

Look, I love the maker revolution stuff. Been a follower and supporter of things like the RepRap/Makerbot projects for as long as they have existed. But no, printing everyday stuff is not right around the corner.

You mention Shapeways in your post but have obviously never used it. Ever priced something out there? Getting a set of WalMart quality eating utensils from Shapeways would cost more than a set of actual silver silverware. Yes, it is a wonderful and unique niche service. But emphasis is on 'niche' and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

You want your own custom laptop case made to spec? You don't need anything fancy or new for that. I guarantee there are dozens of metal shops in any city that would be pleased as punch to mill one out for you to any specifications you can dream. That's not new. That's a service that has existed for as long as there have been shops. Of course the case alone will cost an order of magnitude more than just buying an entire high end laptop. Has it caught on? Never.

Unlearned lesson for business economics (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40096371)

American Business schools give young whippersnappers all kinds of fucked up advice (like to Dell: continue to cut costs by outsourcing to a Taiwanese company ....good... untill Asus eats your lunch). Here is another one. Send product assembly to Foxconn because they can abuse Chinese labor like no one else on earth. Communist, shmomunist. Wanna eat? We have work. Just chain youself to that post and we will let you eat and sleep nearly every day! And in another cost saving measure: oursource difficult to manufacture parts of the supply chain to South Korea. What's the vendor? Kia? Hundai? Daewoo? LG? No. Its another South Korean company. Samsung. Thats it. Now, on to these legal battles. Who are we competing with? Those bastards! What's their name? Sam*sung? We Will Sue! What? What do you mean our supply chain collapsed? Our difficult-to-manufacture parts supplier is experiencing bottlenecks? Its killing our business, we *NEED* those parts! What? What do you mean someone is suing them and until the law suit is over they can't supply parts? I thought outsourcing was supposed to be a good thing! The short answer is: if Apple wins the suit, their supply chain dies. Hello android.

lulz (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096403)

I think the real story here is that people still believe innovation is possible in the United States. The patent on originality isn't set to expire here for another 150 years plus the life of the author, at which point, the rest of the world will send researchers and film crews in to study our city ruins and study the native peoples...

Simple solution (0)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096409)

Stop selling them parts for their iPhones!!!

Re:Simple solution (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096461)

Apple isn't interested in selling or winning, they just want to delay things for as long as legally possible, using every means possible. Samsung know this and still want to make money selling Apple parts. This has more to do with the corrupted legal process than anything else. No matter what happens it will be appealed through higher and higher courts and when it is at the highest legal level with about a couple of months to go then Apple will negotiate, to get there might take a year or more.

Re:Simple solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40096475)

Someone else would sell and they will lose the profit.

Re:Simple solution (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096739)

while this is true - it would seriously screw apple until they could find another supplier that could get production up to suitable levels, this isn't exactly a quick process.

Re:Simple solution (1)

Barlo_Mung_42 (411228) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096579)

But the money is soo sooo sweet.

Re:Simple solution (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 2 years ago | (#40098095)

Yes, because Samsung wants to erase several billion dollars worth of income from their balance sheet. That's a very simple solution. It's also very stupid.

Judge Judy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40096421)

Can't be good for Apple. Reality distortion simply won't work on her.

"Don't you piss on my leg and tell me it's raining!! My goddamn iPhone drops calls!!"

This is good for us (1)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096531)

Us being anti-patent-everywhere people. The more these companies tear each other apart, the more obvious it becomes to disinterested observers that the system is broken.

Re:This is good for us (1)

Tough Love (215404) | more than 2 years ago | (#40097221)

The more these companies tear each other apart, the more obvious it becomes to disinterested observers that the system is broken.

But what do you do about disinterested, stupid observers?

just a guess (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096629)

But the US company will win.

Re:just a guess (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096671)

I suppose you mean Samsung. Samsung is more of an 'US company' that Apple.

Fuck off, Chelsea FC! (0)

dead nancy (239321) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096647)

As long as I see 'SAMSUNG' on Chelsea's kit? DIAF Samsung.

Judge Koh .... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096697)

.... needs to send these CEOs to the Octagon [wikipedia.org] to settle things.

Biased summary? (5, Insightful)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096713)

Perhaps Tim is worried that Samsung is still the primary component supplier for mobile products, including the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch or perhaps Apple has bitten off more than it really wants to chew with the litigation between the two getting to truly epic and global proportions.

None of that is in the article. So, Fluffeh is the new Fox News?

In general, two companies failing to come to an agreement means... two companies failed to come to an agreement. Not, "one company is 'worried' and 'has bitten off more than it really wants to chew'."

Soooo... (1, Flamebait)

WillyWanker (1502057) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096779)

So basically Tim is willing to talk so long as Samsung willingly acquiesces to all his demands and Apple isn't required to give up anything.

Perhaps he not doesn't realize that's not how mediation and arbitration works?

SO... (2, Interesting)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096823)

Using samsung products as intended is now "inventing their own products" by apple?

You didnt invent the hardware, you didnt invent the rounded rectangle, even your precious steve was quoted as stating "Rectangles with rounded corners are everywhere! Just look around this room!"

http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Round_Rects_Are_Everywhere.txt&sortOrder=Sort%20by%20Date&detail=medium&search=round

You didnt invent grey metal, nor glossy piano black, or the widescreen format, so I am sorry outside of software (which is based on open source) what did you do outside of marketing and packaging?

"Perhaps Tim is worried that Samsung is still the primary component supplier for mobile products"

Holy shit, something el steveo never got... what drives droves of apple customers away? They fact they cant offer compatiblity, sometimes within their own family of shit. People dont like paying a pile of money just to find out all the new shit next month wont work because of a rom issue, architecture change, or planned obsolescence based on an flake assholes whim and personal hissy fits.

Unbalanced (4, Interesting)

chowdahhead (1618447) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096917)

The problem is that Nokia, Samsung, Motorola, and Ericcson spend billions of USD annually on research that has contributed to the underlying technology that makes mobile phones work. Apple hasn't and has little to offer in a cross-licence agreement, since most of their mobile patent holdings consist of weak software patents--many of which probably wouldn't hold up under reexamination. I can imagine why the negotiations have failed, but I've also wondered if the FRAND licenses held by component manufacturers like Qualcomm extend to Apple.

Re:Unbalanced (2)

Telvin_3d (855514) | more than 2 years ago | (#40097635)

By definition FRAND licenses apply universally. You could build a chip in your garage, pay the fee and be good to go, no questions asked.

Part of the problem is that traditionally most companies have been happy to work out alternate licensing agreements. Apple is the first big player to actually pay the FRAND costs instead of negotiating.

FRAND applies universally here too. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40098103)

If you put patents in the pool, you get FRAND access to patents in the pool.

If you don't want to put your patents in the pool, you don't get FRAND access to patents in the pool.

Apple didn't want to put any patents for GSM into the patent pool. Therefore they don't get the reduced price.

Re:FRAND applies universally here too. (2)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#40098253)

If you put patents in the pool, you get FRAND access to patents in the pool.

If you don't want to put your patents in the pool, you don't get FRAND access to patents in the pool.

Apple didn't want to put any patents for GSM into the patent pool. Therefore they don't get the reduced price.

What is this nonsense?

Apple "didn't want to put any patents for GSM into the pool"??! What are you smoking? The GSM standard is set - you don't just go around adding things to it.

The standard is fixed, and the patents in it are fixed. There is a fixed cost for implementing it for anyone who wants it. If you have nothing to cross licence then you can pay cash or horses or vanilla fudge or anything in trade, but it must be the same value as someone else who is also licensing the patent pool. That's what FRAND means - you give up your ability to selectively licence and set a price because you're assured that everyone will be licensing from you.

There is *no obligation* to contribute anything to the patent pool if you want to use it (say, if you're Apple and you want to make a phone), all you have to do is pay the FRAND cost that everyone else paid. Those are the terms of the contract. Many companies cross licence other patents, but this is not a requirement.

Re:FRAND applies universally here too. (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 2 years ago | (#40098299)

That is not how FRAND works.

When a company offers an invention for inclusion in an industry standard they are (almost always) required to agree to offer that patent under FRAND terms. If accepted into the industry standard, they are then _required_ to offer a license to the patent at Fair, Reasonable, and Non Discriminatory terms. They _cannot_ deny the patent license to anyone (Non Discriminatory).

In almost all circumstances, this means that they earn a lower rate than non-FRAND patents but they make up for it in volume since anyone wishing to use the industry standard must license the technology. And the company with the patent _MUST_ license it at a Fair and Reasonable rate.

Your understanding of FRAND licensing is entirely wrong.

Re:FRAND applies universally here too. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40098359)

But I think Apple has been arguing that they don't need to pay for Samsung's 3G FRAND licenses because Qualcomm already has, but yet they've also claimed that they've tried to license the same technology and Samsung wouldn't offer it under "fair and reasonable" terms. That's where it's gotten murky.

Re:Unbalanced (4, Interesting)

romiz (757548) | more than 2 years ago | (#40098343)

I've also wondered if the FRAND licenses held by component manufacturers like Qualcomm extend to Apple.

It does not. One of my previous employers tried to play this card with the MPEG-LA for digital TV decoders, and in the end they had to settle and pay for the MPEG2 patents. But Apple lawyers may be more skilled and success where others have failed.

Let it Burn (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096999)

Apple vs Samsung. Oracle vs Google. Microsoft vs Motorola.

The thing about the Patent Wars was that it used to be a cold war. Each side with their stockpile of threats. "Yeah we infringe on your patents A,B,C. But you infringe on our patents D,E,F. Let's settle this peaceful-like. And in the meanwhile the little guys who don't have enough clout to get a seat at the table lose out. Innovation stagnates.

But now, aha! It's not a cold war anymore. The Big Guys are fighting! And it will only get worse. Folks, this is going to get seriously ugly as time goes on. This *will* escalate. It has to. Once a shooting war starts the only way to win is to score more damage on your opponents than you receive. And money is the score in this war. Sue me for ten million because of patent X? Fine. I'll sue you for eleven million for patent Y. See you in court!

Which is good for the rest of us. Eventually when the courts are swamped with this nonsense they'll eventually legislate it away. Software patents will someday be on a shelf with buggy whips and other obsolete ideas. When that happens it will be a bad day for all of us. Patent portfolios are valued at billions of dollars for the large players. That's a lot of value to suddenly go *poof*. It will suck, no doubt.

But every day after that will be better and better. But brace yourself for the worst in the meantime. A storm is coming.

Re:Let it Burn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40097423)

Or the courts just continue to knock most of the patents down and the only ones the really succeed end up being FRAND patents so it's no big deal anyhow.

It's like a shooting war where most of the munitions turn out to be marshmallows and anything that isn't is at most capable of causing a flesh wound. As far as "wars" go, this has all been pretty damned uneventful. No one has won, well, except for the lawyers.

Another interpretation (0)

phonewebcam (446772) | more than 2 years ago | (#40097257)

After all Apples famous "rounded corner" look and feel court actions against Samsung regarding smartphones, they suddenly have a change of heart and want to settle like grown ups. Just as they are about to launch a TV. Which will presumably be of the large, square, flat, black rectangular kind with a remote - in fact, having exactly the same look and feel as the ones Samsung and zillions of clones have been selling for 10+ years. Coincidence?

Re:Another interpretation (0)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#40098269)

Far more simple would be the interpretation given by Tim Cook himself, and quoted in the summary - he prefers negotiation over lawsuits. He also recently took over as CEO and now has control over what Apple does. Steve Jobs, on the other hand, was a fan of lawsuits.

Now, Cook isn't simply going to roll over - it's been started, so he'll see it out, but I'm not expecting such a large flurry of suits to come out of Apple in the future once this current crop have wound up.

In other words, Tim says (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40097975)

In other words, Tim says: "I hate it when people don't just cave in to my demands!".

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>