Looks like the end of the road for Samsung.

[YoungGun21]

It isn't bad practice. It's legally allowed and good for business (ie profits).

Morally however? There is a good chance your Chinese made sweater could have been child labour. Did you raise a moral stink about it when you bought it or when it was given to you?

Or do morals only apply to Apple?

I already said in my last post, not all clothes that come from China are made by children or in true sweatshops. That is far from the case.

To bring up another point, if a company is doing something immoral - that is bad practice. There is NO denying that. It may be the most cost efficient way to do something, but that does not mean it is the best business practice. I think this is something you need to realize. You are too caught up in the "perform for shareholders" mindset, whereas a business really has more things to consider, such as public sentiment.

 

[Pliablemoose]

I already said in my last post, not all clothes that come from China are made by children or in true sweatshops. That is far from the case.

To bring up another point, if a company is doing something immoral - that is bad practice. There is NO denying that. It may be the most cost efficient way to do something, but that does not mean it is the best business practice. I think this is something you need to realize. You are too caught up in the "perform for shareholders" mindset, whereas a business really has more things to consider, such as public sentiment.

Yeah, so you take advantage of cheap labor in developing countries, yet condemn Apple for doing it.

What's that called? Hypocrisy?

 

[HeXen]

If its from China, you really don't know for certainty if sweatshop kids made it or even what dangerous stuff its made of. American consumers are too trusting, plus most don't really care so long as they can afford to buy it.

i wonder what the world would be like without cheap labor?

 

[J-Money]

I already said in my last post, not all clothes that come from China are made by children or in true sweatshops. That is far from the case.

To bring up another point, if a company is doing something immoral - that is bad practice. There is NO denying that. It may be the most cost efficient way to do something, but that does not mean it is the best business practice. I think this is something you need to realize. You are too caught up in the "perform for shareholders" mindset, whereas a business really has more things to consider, such as public sentiment.

Ok answer these questions:

1. What is immoral about Apple protecting it's legally obtained rights?
2. What percentage of the public even know about this lawsuit?
3. What percentage of the people who know, EXCLUDING Apple haters, would have their view on Apple changed negatively?

Everyone knows Nikes are made in horrible living-condition sweatshops, but the public sees them pretty highly and buys up their products like mad. Why would a lawsuit over a design patent change anyones view on Apple? Chances are they won't win anyways and nothing will happen. Business will continue as usual.

 

[s44]

i wonder what the world would be like without cheap labor?

A lot shittier.

Remember that "cheap" labor is relative to here or western Europe or Japan. In China and wherever the next frontiers of "cheap" are, these jobs are still damned lucrative compared to starving as a subsistence farmer or whatever backwards occupations the country would depend on absent foreign trade. Doesn't mean companies should crap on these workers just because they can, but we should remember that the terms are an upgrade. Obviously this doesn't apply to prisoners, but that's another story.

In the long run, cheap labor is a phase. Korea was once cheap labor for Japan, now Samsung is stomping Sony (and, uh, Apple). China was once cheap unskilled labor, now they're doing higher-end electronics and are too expensive for the really cheap stuff. They'll be outsourcing gold farming to North Korea soon.

Uh, to get back on topic: the DT piece is correct, and the AT (and the subject line here) is wild sensationalizing. Apple didn't win squat, and in fact may have lost its main chance to get anything before the case is rendered moot by new products anyway. Getting another decision of infringement on the same trivial bounce patent with which Apple got its pyrrhic victory in Europe helps Cupertino not at all.

 

[Pliablemoose]

I'm going to refrain from posting in any more patent threads, but I do suspect it's becoming a matter of when, not if Apple will succede.

 

[J-Money]

I'm going to refrain from posting in any more patent threads, but I do suspect it's becoming a matter of when, not if Apple will succede.

Probably, and the Apple haters will blame Apple when it is the fault of the patent offices for this foolishness.

 

[_Aurel_]

I try to stay out of these threads, but Samsung screwed the pooch.

Newsflash: touch technology concepts have been demonstrated long before Apple came out with the iPad. Samsung will simply have to go about this the hard way and get those patents invalidated in court. I think that's looking like a possibility because even the US judge said that while Samsung violated patents, the patents themselves might not be valid.

 

[kaiteter]

If its from China, you really don't know for certainty if sweatshop kids made it or even what dangerous stuff its made of. American consumers are too trusting, plus most don't really care so long as they can afford to buy it.

i wonder what the world would be like without cheap labor?

Noticed a report somewhere pointed out that Apple's suppliers are sweatshops, and it's really hard to believe it's true.

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

Noticed a report somewhere pointed out that Apple's suppliers are sweatshops, and it's really hard to believe it's true.

Not just Apple's suppliers. Most everyone's suppliers...

 

[pankajs]

As long as i think samsung does not copy from any other company's product. They have qualified and creative designers in their company. That design their products.

 

[annomander]

They have qualified and creative designers in their company. That design their products.

They might have, but its a shame management keep telling them to copy anothers design rather then using their abilities.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Samsung should do what China does when they rip something off. And when China rips something off, they rip it off good and get away with it.

You mean like the wonderful Sciphone Iphone 4 clones that barely work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xwvsXtC4ZY&feature=related

--------

Actually, Korean companies are the masters of copying and making better. Chinese knockoffs are usually of such inferior quality that they aren't even worth fretting over, and also that the laws in China against copying are so lax that it's difficult to fight clone makers.

Hyundai (Korean) has gone from being a joke to the #4 or 5 car company by basically beating Toyota and Honda at their own game. Samsung has done the same with several Apple features from their iPhones.


The problem with Samsung is that they have copied Apple a little too closely in their interface (TouchWiz), some design touches, and that they are quickly becoming the #2 smart phone manufacturer (currently they trail RIM, I believe, in total sales, but it's only a matter of time). Apple can see the writing on the wall; Android phones are >50% of smartphone sales now, globally, and Samsung is the #1 Android manufacturer.

 

[kaiteter]

Not just Apple's suppliers. Most everyone's suppliers...

That's really horrible...

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

That's really horrible...

I meant to say that Apple isn't the only one who uses Foxconn and those other suppliers. Apple releases a yearly report about worker conditions in their factories and have been known to drop companies for not complying with their standards.

 

[aphex]

If I'm not mistaken, it looks as if Samsung was the one who brought these suits in all the different countries and has been losing most of the battles following an Apple Countersuit.

 

[jpeyton]

Looks like the end of the road for Samsung.

What a laughable title. Samsung in mammoth. The company spans everything from consumer electronics to engineering/construction, even insurance and hotels.

Samsung is extremely well-integrated when it comes to consumer electronics manufacturing. Using smartphones as an example, they design and fab their own displays, batteries, SoC, memory, controllers, camera sensors, etc. Not only that, but their components are on the higher end of the quality scale.

They will quickly implement workarounds for Apple's patent claims. They'll also cut Apple loose after current contractual obligations end. These lawsuits won't affect Galaxy Tab sales in the short term (which are selling pretty slowly anyways), and Apple hasn't made any significant legal inroads against the blockbuster sales of the Galaxy S2 yet.

 

[J-Money]

What a laughable title. Samsung in mammoth. The company spans everything from consumer electronics to engineering/construction, even insurance and hotels.

Samsung is extremely well-integrated when it comes to consumer electronics manufacturing. Using smartphones as an example, they design and fab their own displays, batteries, SoC, memory, controllers, camera sensors, etc. Not only that, but their components are on the higher end of the quality scale.

They will quickly implement workarounds for Apple's patent claims. They'll also cut Apple loose after current contractual obligations end. These lawsuits won't affect Galaxy Tab sales in the short term (which are selling pretty slowly anyways), and Apple hasn't made any significant legal inroads against the blockbuster sales of the Galaxy S2 yet.

No, they will not cut Apple loose. You can't possibly believe that. In fact, Apple may be the one to cut ties, which would be bad for Samsung. We are talking nearly $8 billion this year alone in sales. Do you honestly think Samsung would cut $8 billion in sales over a lawsuit?

Apple is Samsungs #1 customer. That means the one who gives them the most money. Do you honestly believe Samsung would cut ties and give up that much money because they are angry? Do you know that companies sue each other all the time?

 

[senseamp]

If it gets banned here, I am getting a Samsung phone.

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

What a laughable title. Samsung in mammoth. The company spans everything from consumer electronics to engineering/construction, even insurance and hotels.

Samsung is extremely well-integrated when it comes to consumer electronics manufacturing. Using smartphones as an example, they design and fab their own displays, batteries, SoC, memory, controllers, camera sensors, etc. Not only that, but their components are on the higher end of the quality scale.

They will quickly implement workarounds for Apple's patent claims. They'll also cut Apple loose after current contractual obligations end. These lawsuits won't affect Galaxy Tab sales in the short term (which are selling pretty slowly anyways), and Apple hasn't made any significant legal inroads against the blockbuster sales of the Galaxy S2 yet.

What I found interesting is that Apple only sued Samsung in the United States. Samsung was the one that started suing Apple all over the world and is losing all those fights.

Samsung is interesting because it is an extremely large company with hands all over. What that means is Samsung Mobile does not necessarily have an in with Samsung who makes the all the parts. Samsung Mobile still has to bid for Samsung Manufacturing to get parts.

 

[Fire&Blood]

Samsung Mobile is the favorite child though. Especially now when other segments are posting losses, Mobile boosted them towards a overall smaller Q3 loss than expected.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/06/us-samsung-idUSTRE7957L420111006

Apple's abuse of the current patent system is showing fruition but the impact will be limited to the products which cycles are expiring and all the tablet sale bans combined amount to less that 500k units they could have sold. Unless Samsung is insane to risk future patent infringement, it's a slap on the wrist as they can absorb any patent related losses with their part sales anyway.

 

[tdawg]

Having played with most of the HoneyComb tablets, Asus Transformer, Moto Xoom, Toshiba Thrive, Acer A500&A100, and the Galaxy Tab 10.1, the Tab 10.1 shares no more in common with the iPad than other HoneyComb devices. Even with TouchWiz UX. Aside from it being thinner and lighter than the other HoneyComb tabs, the Samsung isn't really that much different. I think I said that how I wanted. If sales of the Tab 10.1 are blocked, then ALL HoneyComb tablets would need to be halted as well. That's obviously extremely detrimental to the consumer.

I could be wrong, but I think Apple's complaint against the Tab 10.1 is the physical appearance; both are super thin and sliver aluminum- or white-backed tablets with the only outward appearance differences being the physical home button on the ipad 2 and the widescreen format on the tab.

I don't think Apple is complaining that Honeycomb is similar to iOS, because that one seems much easier to dismiss.

 

[Mopetar]

I could be wrong, but I think Apple's complaint against the Tab 10.1 is the physical appearance; both are super thin and sliver aluminum- or white-backed tablets with the only outward appearance differences being the physical home button on the ipad 2 and the widescreen format on the tab.

I don't think Apple is complaining that Honeycomb is similar to iOS, because that one seems much easier to dismiss.

Apple was still suing over a few non-design patents as well, but I think that Samsung already worked around most or them, so they're not much of an issue at this point.