Apple Ban Overruled

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
ultimatebob

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
25,134
2,450
126
Does it really matter at this point? Apple's patent war against Samsung has still ultimately failed, as Apple is losing more and more marketshare to Samsung every day.
 
Bateluer

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
ultimatebob said:
Does it really matter at this point? Apple's patent war against Samsung has still ultimately failed, as Apple is losing more and more marketshare to Samsung every day.
Click to expand...

Not to mention several of their frivolous patents were invalidated too.
 
G

gus6464

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2005
1,848
32
91
What ticks me is that when Samsung does it they are a patent troll but when Apple does it, it's ok.
 
Joe1987

Joe1987

Senior member
Jul 20, 2013
482
0
0
IIRC, Samsung was involved in the last veto as well, but they were the beneficiary 1987, Reagan, something about nand memory?
 
D

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
ultimatebob said:
Does it really matter at this point? Apple's patent war against Samsung has still ultimately failed, as Apple is losing more and more marketshare to Samsung every day.
Click to expand...

It hasn't failed. When they come to an understanding on royalty payments, all those Galaxy phones will get an Apple tax.
 
D

dawheat

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2000
3,132
93
91
Dari said:
It hasn't failed. When they come to an understanding on royalty payments, all those Galaxy phones will get an Apple tax.
Click to expand...

Yes and no - I'm sure Apple would prefer to have captured some of the 70 million smartphones Samsung sold in Q2 themselves. On the other hand, getting royalty payments is a nice consolation, though the end game still is unclear as Apple seems on their way to losing a couple of the bigger patents they won against Samsung, though they have added several new ones.

In the end however, I'm curious how Apple will make a case in court that HTC can pay about $5 per phone in royalties but they want about $25 per Samsung phone.
 
jpeyton

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Dari said:
It hasn't failed. When they come to an understanding on royalty payments, all those Galaxy phones will get an Apple tax.
Click to expand...
A small royalty payment per phone is peanuts during the land-grab era. Every Android smartphone sold isn't just one less iPhone sold, it's also one less iTunes/iBooks/i-Whatever customer locked into Apple's ecosystem.

As people continue to cut-cords in record numbers (no cable, no landline, etc.) and digital media stomps out physical media, the gatekeepers of iTunes and Google Play will have a huge high-margin revenue stream on their hands.

If the smartphone industry has taught us anything over the last few years, it's that you can go from top-of-the-heap to down-in-the-dumps extremely quickly.
 
C

Crono

Lifer
Aug 8, 2001
23,720
1,502
136
I wonder if any wholly American company could be as vertically integrated and dominant in an industry as Samsung and not face major antitrust suits here in the United States... if there were a company that could be that vertically integrated and dominant, it would probably be Apple.

I'm a bit glad that Samsung failed, but I don't feel sorry for Apple that they are embroiled in legal issues against Samsung. They may have some justifiable patents, but too many patent lawsuits nowadays are just about gaming the system and tying up the resources of competitors and attempting to leech them of profits. It's sad that patent trolls and major corporations alike are engaged in "patent wars", and in seems none of the major companies are really exempt. That money could be better spent doing heavy and rapid R&D, and a better job of keeping new products under wraps (which is nigh impossible, I know, but it's all about buying time wherever and whenever you can).

Lawyers should not have as much control over the tech world as they do. The blatant stuff like Samsung's copying of iOS' UI in the past was pretty bad, though, I'm still not sure how they got away with selling their phones in the U.S. at that time. I'm not even sure the Galaxy brand would have taken off as it did had Samsung not basically duplicated the iOS look. So they could at least say thank you to Apple. :D

I'm not a fan of either company for different reasons, but they both make a few products I like. I've always liked the iPad and Macbook Air, and Samsung makes some of the best SSDs of any manufacturer. The Note line is the best of phablets, and their TVs are decent, too. The legal and political issues of tech companies don't interest me except when they stifle innovation - I would much rather read and hear about x company making a new feature or product.
 
Last edited:
lopri

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
13,312
687
126
A sensible decision by DOJ. But this patent madness should be fixed at a more fundamental level by Congress. Even lay persons now understand that patent today is not about inventions but about patent lawyers and corporate greed.
 
L

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
lopri said:
A sensible decision by DOJ. But this patent madness should be fixed at a more fundamental level by Congress. Even lay persons now understand that patent today is not about inventions but about patent lawyers and corporate greed.
Click to expand...
The only thing that would make this sensible is if either both companies injunctions are either allowed to go through or both companies injunction request are denied, meaning essentially that they will both eventually be forced to the negotiation table and reach a conclusion.

We'll see what happens with Apple's ITC injunction request of Samsung devices on August 9th.
 
L

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
Crono said:
I wonder if any wholly American company could be as vertically integrated and dominant in an industry as Samsung and not face major antitrust suits here in the United States... if there were a company that could be that vertically integrated and dominant, it would probably be Apple.

I'm a bit glad that Samsung failed, but I don't feel sorry for Apple that they are embroiled in legal issues against Samsung. They may have some justifiable patents, but too many patent lawsuits nowadays are just about gaming the system and tying up the resources of competitors and attempting to leech them of profits. It's sad that patent trolls and major corporations alike are engaged in "patent wars", and in seems none of the major companies are really exempt. That money could be better spent doing heavy and rapid R&D, and a better job of keeping new products under wraps (which is nigh impossible, I know, but it's all about buying time wherever and whenever you can).

Lawyers should not have as much control over the tech world as they do. The blatant stuff like Samsung's copying of iOS' UI in the past was pretty bad, though, I'm still not sure how they got away with selling their phones in the U.S. at that time. I'm not even sure the Galaxy brand would have taken off as it did had Samsung not basically duplicated the iOS look. So they could at least say thank you to Apple. :D

I'm not a fan of either company for different reasons, but they both make a few products I like. I've always liked the iPad and Macbook Air, and Samsung makes some of the best SSDs of any manufacturer. The Note line is the best of phablets, and their TVs are decent, too. The legal and political issues of tech companies don't interest me except when they stifle innovation - I would much rather read and hear about x company making a new feature or product.
Click to expand...
No company in the US could ever be that. This assumes that regulators are actually doing their jobs of course and not falling asleep at the switch or being bought by lobbyists.
Microsoft tried doing that during the dotcom days, they were threatened and almost forced by the DoJ to be broken up into separate Operating systems, Software, and Hardware companies.
 
Last edited:
M

MrX8503

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2005
4,529
0
0
"I'm outraged. The underlying rationale of the ITC ruling is a serious threat to innovation and competition. Among other things, it represents a radical departure from well-established antitrust principles concerning the illegal practice of tying (in this case, a Samsung proposal that required Apple to license its non-standard-essential patents to Samsung in order to get an SEP license). This totally runs counter to the ITC's mission to protect the domestic industry." -Pinkert

Looks like Samsung is a threat to innovation.
 
P

PowerYoga

Diamond Member
Nov 6, 2001
4,603
0
0
lothar said:
No company in the US could ever be that. This assumes that regulators are actually doing their jobs of course and not falling asleep at the switch or being bought by lobbyists.
Microsoft tried doing that during the dotcom days, they were threatened and almost forced by the DoJ to be broken up into separate Operating systems, Software, and Hardware companies.
Click to expand...

Off topic, but monsanto comes to mind as "that company". I'm sure I'm missing a few in the food industry too.
 
TuxDave

TuxDave

Lifer
Oct 8, 2002
10,571
3
71
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom