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 Seeks To Block 8 Samsung Products After Court Win

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the rent-seeking-isn't-the-free-market dept.

Android 396

angry tapir writes "Apple has asked a U.S. court to block sales of eight Samsung Electronics products, following the iPhone maker's victory in a patent lawsuit against Samsung. In a filing to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Apple asked for preliminary injunctions against seven smartphones carrying its Galaxy brand, plus the Droid Charge. It based the requests on a jury's ruling on Friday that Samsung had infringed several Apple patents. Apple said it wants the preliminary injunction pending a final injunction."

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

Capitalism is to blame (2, Funny)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147363)

When the workers take power and expropriate the bourgeoisie, we will have a planned economy and non of these shenanigans from an outlived, parasitical class of exploiters. Smash capitalism! Workers of the world, unite!

Re:Capitalism is to blame (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147471)

For a Free Internet, proving once a gain that Americans don't know what the fuck communism even is.

Glad I'm not in the US... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147373)

Nuff said!

This will stifle innovation (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147383)

Because now people will have to come up with original ideas. Boo fucking hoo.

Re:This will stifle innovation (5, Insightful)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147421)

The problem is that whatever you might think of, someone has already a patent on it or a patent that's broad enough to cover what you do. Not because they ever thought of using the phone like you, but because they sought to cover as broad base as possible with their patent.

If Apple had been held to your standards they would never have gotten into the mobile industry at all since its impossible to build a mobile phone without infringing on thousands of patents on hardware alone from thousands of different companies and private inventors. If a fucking bounce effect costs billions to use, how fucking much do you think a fucking complete mobile phone would cost? Its not like Apple waddled into a vacuum and suddenly made a phone nobody had ever done before with never unheard of components.

Re:This will stifle innovation (0, Troll)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147585)

If a fucking bounce effect costs billions to use, how fucking much do you think a fucking complete mobile phone would cost?

Well Apple pays Nokia I think 8 Euros per phone for their patents. Motorola is arguing they are owed 2.5% (which on a $700 phone is a lot of money). So the answer is quite a bit.

Its not like Apple waddled into a vacuum and suddenly made a phone nobody had ever done before with never unheard of components.

Actually that's pretty much exactly what happened. The combination of:
a) web based interface
b) animation based UI interactions
c) capacitive touchscreen alone

was a collection of components that had never been used together before. That's how Apple ended up inventing so many of the technologies that went into Android. That's what's causing the trouble.

Your bounce effect is important because of the focus on the web. A bounce is an animation. You need the animation because you are using a touchscreen and not a slider to advance down the webpage so the operator likes feedback.

Re:This will stifle innovation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147769)

was a collection of components that had never been used together before.

And the GP specifically said, and you even quoted him as saying

never unheard of components.

which, while bad english, is not the point you seem to have been thinking he was making

Re:This will stifle innovation (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147781)

Android normally doesn't use a bounce effect during scrolling, it uses a glow effect. Pretty much all of the claims only apply to Samsung's modifications to the base Android system (what they call "TouchWiz"), which is why you don't see, e.g., the Galaxy Nexus named in this injunction.

Re:This will stifle innovation (4, Insightful)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147721)

Its not like Apple waddled into a vacuum and suddenly made a phone nobody had ever done before with never unheard of components.

This is what always kills me about those "Before iPhone, after iPhone" and "Before iPad, after iPad" images Apple fans constantly post. They completely miss the fact that Samsung had phone before iPhone and Samsung had tablets before iPad. Apple gets defensive about broad patents on trade dress, but completely neglect the fact that the iPhone has a speaker on the top, which is not so loud as to conform to the sensitivities of the human ear; a mic on the bottom, which is sensitive enough to pic up the human voice; is shaped to fit the human hand and the human head; contains radio technology which enables voice conversations between people across the planet, at the speed of light; relies on networking technology developed by other companies to enable as such.... all the myriad technologies that enable the iPhone to even exist, were in place before the iPhone, and were invented by many of the same companies Apple is so keen to sue for frivolities like scroll bounce.

These "Before iPhone, after iPhone" images are a direct consequence of the touch screen becoming the primary input device, just as the fact that the iPhone has a speaker on top and a mic on the bottom is a direct consequence of mouth/ear placement on the human head.

Re:This will stifle innovation (0)

tgibbs (83782) | more than 2 years ago | (#41148007)

Yes, there are many pre-existing phone features that were essential to the iPhone. Many were patented once upon a time, but are now out of patent--the term of a patent is not actually all that long in the grand scheme of things. Others were licensed by component makers; the jury found that Apple had already indirectly paid for licensing of Samsung's standards-essential patents that were incorporated into components that Apple purchased for the iPhone.

Re:This will stifle innovation (5, Insightful)

noh8rz8 (2716593) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147747)

umm, no... you're right, to build a phone you need patents for 3g, etc. these are standards essential. you can buy them on frand terms. but design patents are just one way of doing things.

if the rubber band bounceback is patented, then figure out a different visual cue. i've seen some nice ones elsewhere. if slide to unlock is patented, then figure out a different way. circle to unlock? spin a wheel? there are infinite varieties.

the OP's point still stands... if you use a little creativity it's no problem to skirt these patents. and it will make for a more vibrant marketplace.

Re:This will stifle innovation (2, Informative)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147423)

Apple got the idea for the design from Sony. A box shape with rounded edged isn't original either.

Re:This will stifle innovation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147481)

Apple had a design brief that said to the designer 'what would a Sony device look like'

The resulting design was inspired by Sony. It did not copy Sony as there was no Sony product for it to copy. You haven't named one because there isn't one.

You really need to go back to the source of your misunderstanding and try reading it again. Either that or you're just trolling or had too much cider.

Re:This will stifle innovation (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147737)

Ever heard of SonyEricsson? Didnt think so. They make mobile phones. There were ample amounts of SonyEricsson products to copy, and many aspects of them is similar in the iPhone. They should have sued the pants off of Apple but in those days people in the mobile business weren't dickheads like Apple.

Re:This will stifle innovation (5, Insightful)

kryliss (72493) | more than 2 years ago | (#41148029)

Sardine cans have had this design for decades with a pull to unlock feature included.

Good (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147407)

Hope Samsung prohibits resale of its products to the US.

Apple is dead to me (5, Insightful)

div_2n (525075) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147413)

I used to recommend people to buy their computers. I actually specifically tell people "just about anything but Apple" now.

Congratulations Apple. You might have won this battle (for now, appeal pending) but I assure you that you've lost the war.

Re:Apple is dead to me (5, Informative)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147433)

Apple is doing shit like that from a very long time. Why do you think we hate them so much?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc [wikipedia.org] .

Probably they are second only to Sony.

Re:Apple is dead to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147659)

Note, the above link lost its period. It should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Apple is dead to me (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147819)

That would be because Microsoft screwed Apple over on the GUI front back in the 80s and 90s and because of that combined with mismanagement after Jobs was fired, Apple almost ended up dying. And Steve Jobs learned the lesson "if you let someone else steal your own technology they might just beat you to death with it" so well that he vowed he'd never let it happen again.

Re:Apple is dead to me (0)

Sez Zero (586611) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147901)

Why do you think we hate them so much?

Apple (and Samsung) are multi-billion multi-national corporations composed of tens of thousands of people. Neither one is your friend; nor is either working in your favor. They want your money.

Don't fall into the Corporate Personhood trap by bringing emotion into it.

Re:Apple is dead to me (-1, Offtopic)

anarkhos (209172) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147445)

Apple isn't a computer company anymore, and since when did everyone's purchasing habits depend on you?

Also, I fail to see any major players with clean hands. They're all parent whores and extortionists.

Re:Apple is dead to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147687)

Who did HTC ever sue without provocation?

Re:Apple is dead to me (4, Insightful)

Dinghy (2233934) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147705)

...since when did everyone's purchasing habits depend on you?

When people want to buy something (short of an impulse buy), they research it. During their research [wikipedia.org] they will ask the opinions of people they respect and feel are knowledgeable on the subject. I'm sorry if your friends and family don't consider you an expert (or consider you too much of a jerk to approach) but there's a rather significant number of people on Slashdot who routinely get asked for computer/electronics purchase advise.

Re:Apple is dead to me (1)

lengau (817416) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147707)

Apple isn't a computer company anymore, and since when did everyone's purchasing habits depend on you?

As with most people on /., div_2n is probably one of the most technical people in his/her family/friends group. As such, he/she is probably asked for advice about this all the time (as I am). div_2n will probably affect the purchasing habits of 5-10 people. If a million nerds get pissed of with Apple enough to start a boycott, and each of those people directly influences the purchasing decisions of 7 others, that's starting to be a noticeable boycott.

Also, I fail to see any major players with clean hands. They're all parent whores and extortionists.

The key is to figure out how to do it so as to annoy the fewest people.

Do you work at Best Buy or something? (3, Insightful)

arcite (661011) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147635)

Most Apple buyers don't need advice, they already know they want an Apple.

Re:Apple is dead to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147639)

I actually specifically tell people "just about anything but Apple" now.

And that's working so well that Apple is now the world's more valuable company!

I'm sure they are quaking in their boots.

Re:Apple is dead to me (1)

bhagwad (1426855) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147891)

Pride goeth...

Re:Apple is dead to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147945)

Most valuable publicly traded company.

Anyone who thinks Apple is more "valuable" than Saudi Aramco, by any metric of "valuable", is delusional.

Re:Apple is dead to me (3, Insightful)

openfrog (897716) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147693)

Apple does not realize the ill-will it is creating with this. It may think this will be limited to a few slash-dotters whining on a forum. The usual stuff. But this is not usual.

I often read on Slashdot that Bill Gates at Microsoft was a good businessman. I don't believe so. Microsoft awful practices have earned it a reputation that has led to its current decline. Apple, as the David against Goliath, use to have a lot of sympathy as a result. But its reputation was also earned on the basis of a preoccupation for the product and for the user experience that was lacking at Microsoft. We believed that Apple was on our side.

If you take Apple as superseding Microsoft on the basis of a better understanding of users' interests, you can then see Google as going further on that account, and greatly benefiting from the confidence they earn as a result. The understanding of the user's interests is much clearer in Google's case, and more sustained (despite all attacks on this account by its enemies) than it ever was in the case of Apple, despite the great show they made of it, 1984 and all.

It may take time, but Apple will pay dearly for what they are doing. They are trashing their name, and their reputation. What a shame.

Re:Apple is dead to me (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147709)

Brings a tear to my eye to see a new gen of people get burned by them.

Apple makes pretty sweet hw and software. They do *NOT* however like to share. They have run many of their partners out of business. Usually on some sort of whim. They do it every time. Take for example adobe flash. Sure its a crummy programming environment. However, instead of treating one of their *long* term partners with a bit of respect they turned on them like piranha fed a lamb chop. Adobe *will* remember that.

In 30 years I have owned 2 pieces of Apple hardware. One Apple ][ and an iPod. Both were gifts. I remember my friends taking a cash bath with them. I remember loosing 2 jobs because of them and their practices.

They get beat every time on the same thing, price and goodwill. Whatever they come up with it only takes 2-3 years to catch up to them (if they are ahead). Then apple has a good enough guy to beat on price (which they rarely do). They then burn many people on the business end. Then say 'poor me' why dont people buy my stuff. Well DUH we remember the 80s and 90s and now the 2010's...

Remember in the 2000s Samsung was a HUGE partner of Apple. So big in fact if Apples sales were down Samsung's were down. A good portion of their ipod line was really made by them and the Chinese stitched the parts together. The original iPhone was also a good portion of Samsung parts. Again Apple turned on them. Guys like Samsung do not forget.

Mark my words. This 'huge' lead they have, they will squander it. They do every time. At this point all they will do is come up with different flavors of the ipad/phone. In many ways if they take out android they will create a worse competitor, Microsoft. MS is at its best when it has to compete (they live for it).

Re:Apple is dead to me (4, Interesting)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147761)

I've been telling them that since Premiere CS4 was released, lol. But seriously, they've had this attitude since like 2000. Their marketing was all about elitism and being better than your friends. Once they paired with Starbucks on some deals, it was almost comically obvious. They turned paying too much into a fashion statement.

Then they did everything they could to act like they had a monopoly even though they had like 5% of the market. They'd bully competitors, over control hardware pricing and availability, lock in prices and threaten vendors who sell lower, etc. They had special RAM made that only fit their systems, sued Psystar, etc. They had the reputation of being the platform for graphics and video editing but like I said, CS4 ended that damn quick. CUDA on a wimpy GT440 = 8x faster rendering than dual 8-core Xeons. Unfortunately, almost no Nvidia cards come in a mac. That doesn't stop them from pretending they're still for video editing though. Now in Photoshop Elements 10 and CS6, they have severe compatibility and font problems so it's pretty much over for them on that front. It'll take years to undo their propaganda that they're the best though. I do usually convince people with actual charts, or just reference their awful human rights violations and unfair business practices.

They've had so many macbook hardware problems lately and back in 07 they had severe overheating problems with their initial core2 duo systems because Steve Jobs is too important to have fans blowing out of his devices.

Then there's the way that they run the App store like nazis and iTunes quite similarly. You think you bought that song? Oh hell no! And you can't redownload it either. So everyone, do everything you can to tell everyone you can that Apple sucks and it will turn into another Vista. All the positive marketing in the world couldn't stop tech experts from giving people the real story and ruining their business.

Re:Apple is dead to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147867)

Yeah, strangely, this sort of thing isn't making me want to purchase Apple products. It's really weird, too; I thought Apple was supposed to be better at marketing than that.

previous gen (1)

nten (709128) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147415)

All these phones are previous generation. Is Samsung still making these? Once they are inside the U.S. and no longer owned by Samsung, can the new owner sell them? Is the answer different if they are new or have been used? Is it different for ATT to sell them, vs. the guy who wants to sell his S2 to get Note 2? If so, why?

Re:previous gen (1)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147425)

i've seen S2's on sale at $99

i doubt samsung cares that much since these were on their way out anyway and they have newer products coming out to replace these

Re:previous gen (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147619)

Where? I'd love to pick one up for my kid at $99.

Re:previous gen (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147695)

The S2 ban may be a bit of a problem as it's still sold as Samsung's budget smartphone, just as Apple sells it's previous model as a budget version of the iPhone.

However, it may not cause them much financial harm as the Galaxy Nexus wasn't covered by this ban and is similarly specced, so Samsung should be able to fill any void selling this handset instead as it was released around the same time, and is similarly specced, and hell, it's already running Jelly Bean to boot which afaik the S2 isn't yet.

I still don't see what the problem is (4, Insightful)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147417)

So Samsung "copied" Apple's use of corners and low profile SMCs to create thinner devices? You know what? I'll still buy Samsung over Apple even if they were the same price, and you want to know why?

It's because no company that resorts to litigating its competition out of existence because it can't offer something as good, if not better, for the same money, *deserves* my money. End of.

To anyone that says I'm jumping on the pro-Samsung bandwagon just because they're the little guy in all this: fuck off.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147447)

Fuck off all of you. If you owned Apple, the company, you'd do the same thing. If you'd spent years developing the hardware and software to run perfectly together, only to see some company come in and rip you off, you'd be pissed to. As a software developer myself I have had this happen to myself. I just don't have Apple's deep pockets. I say kudos to Apple for having the balls to fight for what they believe is right.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is (5, Insightful)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147461)

except the Samsung phones aren't running iOS.

Would you like to play again?

Re:I still don't see what the problem is (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147919)

except the Samsung phones aren't running iOS.

You wouldn't know it, looking at some of the home screens on some of those Samsung phones.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147939)

OK so what's next? Apple to sue Google? :x

Re:I still don't see what the problem is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41148017)

Tim Cook isn't a fan of lawsuits like Steve Jobs was. I suspect he'd prefer Google settle and pay a license. So more likely Cook goes to Google with a billion-dollar jury verdict in hand and says, "now, about all those technologies that Eric Schmidt fed you while he was sitting on our board..."

Re:I still don't see what the problem is (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147503)

My family actually owns stock in Apple. And guess what? I still think it's bullshit.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147539)

I've never heard of a chocolate bar company suing another chocolate bar company because they copied their candy. How many shoe companies sue other shoe companies for making something similar. Car companies? They basically trade tail lights ever 5 years.

This whole thing is a joke and will only create ways to make copying easier like... Samsung selling all the innards of their devices and a 3rd party making the case so you can just swap the parts in and have the same phone you would have had prior to some stupid lawsuit. The end result? Some 3rd party companie gets sued, closes doors, reopens as another company, and way less money is lost.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147879)

Your limited knowledge means nothing.
Search for Lindt vs Hauswirth for an example of a chocolate company suing another.
You can easily find more examples.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is (1)

bhagwad (1426855) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147937)

If you'd spent years developing the hardware and software

Right...I'm sure apple spent YEARS developing bouncing screens. All those billions in R&D!

Re:I still don't see what the problem is (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147479)

The problem is a F'd Up IP system that makes all this possible, and quite possibly the most prudent way to do business. Take these litigation tools away and businesses will go back to needing real innovation rather than punting all competitors with some lame "Button displayed in center of screen" or "Electronics in a plastic enclosure" patent. Patents were supposed to protect the little guy, but how do you even break into a market where every aspect of doing anything is owned by someone?

Re:I still don't see what the problem is (2, Interesting)

anarkhos (209172) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147493)

I'd rather support a company that innovated and makes good products. The sad thing is Samsung would have my respect if they actually tried that instead of purposely trying to muddle the differences between their products and Apple's.

I'm not supporting the patent war (I'm against patents on principle), but I don't like supporting copycats, either. Not because I believe that innovation deserves monopoly, but because they aren't even TRYING to move us further ahead. At least Apple made a new product and tries their best to differentiate themselves. /nobody left to support. Good thing I still use a dumb phone

Re:I still don't see what the problem is (3, Insightful)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147527)

I understand where you're coming from, really I do. What I'm objecting to is a company that sells for $600, something that is functionally and visually similar to a device that another company sells for $100 - made out of the same component parts, even! - and has a hissy fit when they can't figure out why their market's being eaten away.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147645)

Who's market is being eaten away? Did you see Apple's Q2 earnings report? Apple's market cap is bigger than Exxon Mobile.

Facts don't support your argument.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is (4, Informative)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147861)

Apple don't just sell smartphones.

TEN BIGGEST SMARTPHONE MANUFACTURERS BY UNIT SALES IN Q2 2012

Rank, Maker, Units, Market Share, Was in Q1 of 2012
1 Samsung 50.4 M 32.9 % ( 30.6 %)
2 Apple 26.0 M 17.0 % ( 24.2 %)
3 Nokia 10.2 M 6.7 % ( 8.2 %)
4 HTC 8.8 M 5.8 % ( 5.4 %)
5 ZTE 8.0 M 5.2 % ( 3.4 %)
6 RIM 7.8 M 5.1 % ( 7.6 %)
7 Sony 7.5 M 4.9 % ( 5.0 %)
8 Huawei 7.0 M 4.6 % ( 4.8 %)
9 LG 6.5 M 4.2 % ( 3.8 %)
10 Motorola 6.0 M 3.9 % ( 3.5 %)
Others 10.8 M 7.3 % ( 3.3 %)
TOTAL 153.0 M

In fact, Samsung sell twice as many smartphones as Apple.

Care to play again?

Re:I still don't see what the problem is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147777)

I understand where you're coming from, really I do. What I'm objecting to is a company that sells for $600, something that is functionally and visually similar to a device that another company sells for $100 - made out of the same component parts, even! - and has a hissy fit when they can't figure out why their market's being eaten away.

what the fuck are you talking about? the phones infringing are the high end Galaxy phones which cost the same as an iPhone. the $100 knock offs
are not a problem because they just plain suck,

Re:I still don't see what the problem is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41148077)

Apples to oranges false comparison. You either compare subsidized to subsidized or unsubsidized to unsubsidized. Those phones you're talking about don't sell for $100 unsubsidized, and I can get an iPhone for $100 subsidized, so your comparison is bullshit.

Re:I still don't see what the problem is (2)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147605)

LMOL - it's not like Apple's earnings say otherwise...oh wait.....

What's really funny... (4, Interesting)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147431)

...is that Samsung parts make up a solid quarter of the electronics in iPhones and iPads! It gets better: Samsung fabricate the phones...!

So what happens to Apple if Samsung decide to be bastards and pull the plug on parts /and/ assembly? What the fuck can Apple do about it? Precisely *nothing*!

Re:What's really funny... (2)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147489)

I guess they'll have contracts signed for to ensure parts are supplied for years. Depending on the structure the Samsung make parts division isn't the same as the make phones division. Better they buy from you than X. Doing Business with people you don't like is business.

Re:What's really funny... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147491)

Contracts ... it's covered

Re:What's really funny... (2)

tokencode (1952944) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147501)

Apple has enough buying power to get a good deal with any manufacturer, and Samsung isn't stupid enough to cut off a huge source of revenue. They make more off of apple than the lawsuit will cost them

Re:What's really funny... (5, Interesting)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147841)

Yeah this is the primary reason Samsung wont do that, they make enough profit from it to continue.

What they could consider doing though is upping the prices to claw back that $1billion that way, and they can even target it. As many point out Apple can go elsewhere, but not on all components - even where other manufacturers can develop other components Samsung often holds patents.

Screen technology is one area where Samsung could really screw Apple by upping the cost to them, as they're easily the market leaders in this field, both large and small, hence why IIRC even Sony now uses Samsung panels in their TVs. As they invented things like AMOLED they will hold enough patents on current/next gen screen tech to deny Apple access to the best displays, or at least up the cost to them by increasing licensing costs of such tech.

Apple puts together a good product, but Samsung invents the new technology that Apple needs to build those products, so Apple needs to be very careful. If the rumoured Apple TV turns out to be true for example then Apple is either beholden to Samsung for panels, or they put up with inferior quality panels.

There's no doubt Apple is playing a dangerous game, and Samsung is well positioned to claw back any cost Apple has made to them. If the lawsuits all continue to go Apple's way they could push Samsung out of the cellphone market, but they've not got a chance in hell of avoiding Samsung in the components market altogether - they hold too many patents and are the sole producer of too many of those components for that to be possible.

Re:What's really funny... (1)

webmosher (322834) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147505)

Breaking the manufacturing contract would probably cost Samsung a lot more than the $1 billion they lost here. Apparently Apple has already started moving away from Samsung's components in newer/upcoming devices. So, the writing was already on the wall for both parties.

Re:What's really funny... (1)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147731)

not only that but samsung just spent a lot of money to upgrade to 32nm and has interest payments on the factories to make. they aren't going to screw apple and risk having no customers and just interest payments on fabs

Re:What's really funny... (1)

anarkhos (209172) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147515)

Don't be silly; Apple has plenty of options. They even design their own processors. Plus Samsung isn't going to spite anyone when it costs them money. These are corporations, not people.

Re:What's really funny... (0)

Splab (574204) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147671)

Yeah, because there are hundreds of factories sitting idle around, ready to pump up production to meet Apples demands.

If you belive that I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...

Re:What's really funny... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147531)

Cut off your nose to spite your face much?

Apple is an enormous customer for Samsung. They aren't cutting off Apple any time soon because that would kill their revenue.

Samsung may be stupid (by copying their competitors - not just Apple - they've copied Motorola's RAZR and RIM's Blackberry, two of the most popular phones of their time) but Samsung isn't stupid. They want money and they aren't going to piss away one of, if not the largest customer they have.

Re:What's really funny... (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147557)

didn't the SII come out before the RAZR Maxx?

Re:What's really funny... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147535)

Unless there's a contract involved?

Samsung (0)

arcite (661011) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147553)

Samsung will do nothing, they are beholden to Apple. Apple is worth more than Samsung, Google, Microsoft, RIM, and Nokia combined.

Re:What's really funny... (1)

Ratchet (79516) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147563)

I'm rooting for Samsung here too by the way, I'd like to see Apple get a good poke in the nose as much as anybody, but don't you think it's safe to assume that Apple would just go find someone else to do all that for them? It's pretty safe to assume they already have a list of companies, who are lined-up, just chomping at the bit to get a taste of the billions Apple gives Samsung to do that work. Hell, do you even think Samsung is so stupid that they would throw away those Apple billions just to settle a grudge?

Re:What's really funny... (1)

Dupple (1016592) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147597)

You've answered your own question. With so much Samsung inside an iPhone, Samsung simply can't afford to turn their back on apple - they'd loose too much money. The Samsung that makes phones and the Samsung that makes components are not the same company, though they are both part of the Samsung conglomerate.

Additionally there are contracts in place that must continue to be honoured. So if Samsung pulls the plug they effectively shoot themselves in the foot

Re:What's really funny... (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#41148001)

The Samsung that makes phones and the Samsung that makes components are not the same company, though they are both part of the Samsung conglomerate.

They could start using the worst parts instead of the best parts while still living up to their contractual obligations with Apple, as well as increasing the profit margins of their interactions with Apple, as well as stick it to Apple long term without hurting themselves.

Re:What's really funny... (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147679)

What they can do is shift tens of billions of dollars per year in parts orders to Samsung's competitors. This might very well disrupt Apple for months, but the effect of Apple injecting companies like LG with growth hormones could rebound on Samsung for decades.

Moreover Samsung makes more money selling Apple parts than it does selling consumers phones. If one division or the other has to go, Samsung has already decided which it will be.

Re:What's really funny... (1)

allanw (842185) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147699)

Samsung is a huge conglomerate and the mobile division is certainly completely separated from their foundry and LCD businesses.

Re:What's really funny... (1)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147701)

earlier in the year the apple tv had a silent update to a 32nm A5 CPU. one core is disabled which means these are reject chips and apple is helping samsung with their 32nm transition. the ipad 3 is a 45nm A5 CPU.

so no, apple is not leaving samsung any time soon. the A5 CPU is mostly samsung with some apple changes. apple can't just leave either. no matter what clueless ifanboys who think apple designs everything scream on the internet

Re:What's really funny... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147749)

...is that Samsung parts make up a solid quarter of the electronics in iPhones and iPads! It gets better: Samsung fabricate the phones...!

So what happens to Apple if Samsung decide to be bastards and pull the plug on parts /and/ assembly? What the fuck can Apple do about it? Precisely *nothing*!

Yeah, I'm sure that Apple--with $100 billion in the bank--would be pretty helpless in the face of that threat.

Not. Samsung doesn't fabricate the phones. Foxconn makes them, Samsung just provides parts. And do you have any idea how many other component manufacturers would be falling all over each other to snag a piece of that pie?

I think you're fogetting (or never realized) that Apple's CEO Tim Cook was brought on board by Steve Jobs in the late '90's precisely because he's a supply chain wizard; and he's gotten Apple's supply chain and manufacturing networks running so well that it's astonishing. He's exactly the guy that Samsung won't want to try bluffing with a threat to cut off parts for the iPhone and iPad.

Re:What's really funny... (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147779)

That can't possibly be true. They never would have shot themselves in the foot that blatantly.

Can the ban occur before the appeal? (4, Interesting)

synapse7 (1075571) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147435)

Just wondering.

If phones can be banned for using pinch to zoom, why not ban them all?

Yes. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147511)

The court will issue an injunction.

Samsung will appeal and the court will suspend the injunction until the appeal is heard.

By then those devices will be discontinued and a whole family of new lawsuit drawing devices will be on offer.

Rinse.

Repeat.

Re:Can the ban occur before the appeal? (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147785)

I think they should ban whoever gave them that patent (and the rounded corners patent).

The Charge? Really? (3, Interesting)

Howitzer86 (964585) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147443)

Wow, I just looked up what the Droid Charge [engadget.com] looked like. It's really quite different from the iPhone. I think my lil' LG looks more like an iPhone than that one does. [mobilewitch.com]

Oh well, I guess they won't be done with this until everyone either has an iPhone or something that looks like an old Black Berry. Heh, I just realized... BB never actually sued companies over releasing similar phones like this [wikimedia.org] did they?

Maybe if they cared more about their intellectual property they'd be in better shape today. No need to worry about the competition if you can wipe them out in the courts

Re:The Charge? Really? (2)

Splab (574204) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147689)

Check out the 4G Epic, that cost Samsung 350m+ in the ruling; sure as hell looks nothing like an iPhone.

Wow... (0)

Eth1csGrad1ent (1175557) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147463)

.. a thousand Barbara Streisands just walked into a room with a truckload of suppression orders.

So they win in the US and lose elsewhere (4, Informative)

stiggle (649614) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147465)

They lost the cases in the UK, Netherlands, Germany but win in the US.

Part of the ruling in the UK was to put a notice on the website stating that Samsung did not copy Apple.

Re:So they win in the US and lose elsewhere (2)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147793)

They lost the cases in the UK, Netherlands, Germany but win in the US.

Which may have something to do with the major differences in IP law between UK/EU and US. Like - no software patents in the EU (at least in theory).

It would be really, really good if the US patent system didn't grant the sort of silly patents that both sides used in this case (remember folks, don't use an app while playing music without talking to Samsung first). However, it was not the job of this jury to fix the patent system. All of their questions on infringement and validity were of the form "has Samsung/Apple presented sufficient evidence to prove that..." not "is this a bloody obvious patent that the USPTO should never have wasted ink on".

Samsung or Apple - both with big valuable patent portfolios - might have tried to point out specific flaws in specific patents - but would hardly have argued convincingly that obvious patents should be tossed out (see 'turkeys' and 'xmas').

Re:So they win in the US and lose elsewhere (2)

bhagwad (1426855) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147973)

The jury squandered a valuable chance to invalidate the silly patents. Of course, with a patent holder as the foreman...

Re:So they win in the US and lose elsewhere (-1, Flamebait)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147811)

There must have been some Apple fanboys on the jury. If you've never met one, they make radical muslims seem tame and unpassionate by comparison because they prop up their entire ego and self esteem on Apple's marketing manta that Apple products make you better than everyone else. If they're told Apple isn't good, they act very similarly to every monkey or gorilla attack you've ever seen on CNN.

Re:So they win in the US and lose elsewhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147825)

Oddly, the laws in different countries are, you know, different. Funny how that is.

Look and Feel (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147495)

If the "look and feel" lawsuit had happened in the present-day US, Apple would have won it.

And where would be we be now?

Re:Look and Feel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147715)

Metro UI in 1999.

Re:Look and Feel (3, Interesting)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147803)

Apple lost the look and feel lawsuit mainly on issues of standing. But assuming they had won. What would have happened is Microsoft would have had to use very different GUI paradigms in designing Windows. Windows would have had to look and act less like Mac. So they would have used different input methods like maybe the stylus on a tablet / stylus on a resistive touchscreen would have been common. Ideas from OS/2 and NextStep that were circulating in the GUI community about moving towards object oriented GUIs would have been incorporated into Windows. Maybe Be Inc's view of a multimedia desktop (i.e. like Aero). Heck Microsoft might have bough NeXT or Be Inc to transition.

In other words we would have been much better off.

rounded corners (2)

stud9920 (236753) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147497)

how are rounded corners an inovation ? It's basic design.

The most useful shape would be rectangular because that's the shape of the screen - if only for software reasons
The most practical shape to put it in your pocket would be round/oval, because a rectangle will hurt your tighs and tear pockets.

A compromise between the two is simply obvious.

Re:rounded corners (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147621)

I hope someone will make a phone like OpenMoko. I loved the design on it and i really miss the way it was very nice to hold in your hand. http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openmoko [wikipedia.org]

In the end this might actually hurt Apple as someone is bound to come up with a better design and it will give even more choice in the echosystem while Apple is the communist version, you get once size fits all or nothing.

OpenMoko revival (2)

ChristW (18232) | more than 2 years ago | (#41148055)

Did you know you can upgrade the Openmoko's motherboard? See http://www.gta04.org/ [gta04.org]

So you want to push them to the Galaxy SIII? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41147499)

Let's remove the older, slower phones from the market so you'll have to compete only against the SIII, which people say beats the iPhone hands down.

Smart move Apple.

Immitation, not litigation, stiffles innovation. (-1, Flamebait)

stating_the_obvious (1340413) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147581)

To those who say that Apple stiffles innovation, please cite examples of innovation within the products for which Apple is seeking an injunction. Why would one invest in innovation if the market is free to copy immediately?

Galaxy Tab (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147643)

Samsung also asked for the ban on the Galaxy Tab to be removed as this was apparently found not infringing in the very same case. Something which seems to have gone largely unreported.

So a question, does this mean Apple will have to pay damages for loss of sales from the Tab ban due to it apparently being frivolous?

Next Slashdot headline (1)

Grand Facade (35180) | more than 2 years ago | (#41147673)

"Samsung files to appeal judges decision" and blocks Apples request for injunction...ZZZZzzzzzzzzzz

Masturbation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41148057)

allot of Masturbation also does the same, because of an increase of dopamine...
people are morons especially when it's backed by science...

this is typical bullshit bored scientist earning loads of money!

Why isn't Apple being sued by others? (1)

tippe (1136385) | more than 2 years ago | (#41148089)

How can it be that none of the companies targeted by Apple have found a reason to sue Apple for infringing their own products? If I'm not mistaken, Samsung, Motorola, etc, have all been making phones and cell phones far longer than Apple has, and have had far longer to lay down a patent minefield to protect themselves from this shit. Why haven't they found a reason to sue? Is it really possible for Apple's designs to be so squeaky clean that there is nothing for others to go after? Really? Or is it that they're too afraid and are either sitting there quietly, hoping to fly under Apple's radar, or too busy trying to defend themselves from current attacks to launch their own? I'm incredulous that other than a couple of Chinese companies suing Apple for one reason or another, I haven't heard of anybody really being on the offensive against apple. Or, maybe that side of things just doesn't make the headlines...

time for an IBM injuction (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#41148103)

How much do you think Samsung would have to pay IBM to get them to file an injunction against their iPad infringing on their original patent for a tablet? My guess would be not much. I think Apple just painted the biggest, most legitimately attackable target on themselves in human history. They're about to get IBM/Dell/LG/HP/GE/Lenovo-stomped. At least they've got all that 23 billion in cash laying around for legal fees. They're pretty lucky they didn't use it to pay their Foxconn slave labor workers sufficiently.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?