Slashdot Mirror
The Real Reason Apple Is Suing Samsung
doperative writes with this quote from a speculative piece at Business Insider about Apple's real motive behind its recent lawsuit against Samsung's Galaxy devices:
"Android is free. In some cases, it's even cheaper than free, with Google sharing some revenue from Google searches on Android phones with partners. This is hugely disruptive to both Microsoft and Apple's business models; Microsoft because they make money on software licenses, and Apple on hardware. And this disruptive approach is winning: Android is surging past iOS in marketshare. A lawsuit from a big company, even if doomed, still takes a lot of time, energy and money to fight off. So Samsung or someone else might settle, accepting to pay some form of license. If that happens, Apple can go around to the other manufacturers asking for the same license and have a much stronger claim. And now OEMs have to factor that cost into the decision to choose Android. And all of a sudden, Android has a price."
Samsung has fired back with a lawsuit of its own.
It's the same reason Microsoft got "licensing agreements" with all the other handset vendors and is suing Motorola right now. They put a gun to their head and said "release WP7 handsets or we'll sue you for patent infringement." All the others complied, and Motorola is being sued for patent infringement. This is why Microsoft loves software patents and doesn't oppose them outright.
Yes, both Apple and Microsoft are anti-choice and act in anti-competitive manners. This is nothing new, nor will anyone step in to stop it.
> A lawsuit from a big company, even if doomed, still takes a lot of time, energy and money to fight off.
This should be no surprise; it's exactly what the RIAA does to individuals. You don't have to be RIGHT, you only have to tie up enough time, money, energy, and effort that it isn't worth the cost to the recipient.
So if you sue anyone making rectangular tablet computers with ions, you might get a revenue stream, but if not, you have still cost them a lot of trouble to round up related document, emails, put a case together, and so on. And you have cast FUD on anyone else who dares to not use your closed ecosystem - smaller players may not be able to defend themselves adequately.
A smart tactic, since the system allows it, but a highly sleazy one nonetheless.
...bit of a problem or four in it, though:
* Apple is selling pretty much every iPhone they can make.
* the iPhone (in various versions) is the single top-selling phone model, bar none. While overall, yes Android *phones* are selling equal-to-better, no single Android model is anywhere close to matching the iPhone. Therefore, why would Apple bother to chase just Samsung, and not LG, HTC, or a larger phone maker?
* Suing over design won't achieve the premise in TFA... phone makers will just make it look/feel different to work around the stated patent(s). If Apple was truly chasing the goal of crippling Android as a whole, they'd be better off going after the *core* of Android (like, well, Oracle is doing. Speaking of which...)
* Oracle is already working towards something that would achieve the same thing, but to provide Oracle an income stream - so why would Apple feel it had to do something similar, when Oracle is already doing it for them, and has been running that lawsuit long before Apple fired a shot across Samsung's bow?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
This doesn't make sense. Why? Because the Apple v. Samsung suit is supposedly about trademark/design infringement. Because the Galaxy looks way too much like Apple's products. Not about anything technical about it.
Or am I missing something here? And is there something fundamental to Android that this suit is about?
And if it is fundamental to Android, logically the suit should be targeting Google - the author of the Android system. But it seems Google is not involved in this one (yet).
Oh and Android surging over iOS is no surprise but just natural... iOS is limited to one current and a few old models phone, and one current and one old model tablet. Android is not limited and currently available on dozens of current, and possibly hundreds of old models of phones and tablets. Not exactly an even fight.
Sorry it's bedtime (midnight here) so not going to read TFA. Apple shouldn't have much to fear from Android - about as much as it has to fear from Windows in the personal computing world. It competes just fine there.
Microsoft that's the potential big loser here, as they have to sell their OS and are really competing head-to-head with Android. In a market where pennies count, they want to add dollars to the cost. Apple has no such issues, there is no price on an iOS license, afaik it's not even for sale other than in combination with a piece of hardware.
Apple is suing one manufacturer of Android phones who happens to make phones that look pretty much exactly the same as iPhones. It should be pretty obvious to anyone that Apple doesn't like competitors making phones that look like iPhones. If we were to believe the conspiracy theories of "Business Insider", then we would have to believe that Apple doesn't mind their designs being copied. And that I find quite unbelievable. The simplest and therefore most likely explanation for this lawsuit is that Apple doesn't like their designs being copied.
Saying that Apple makes its money of hardware is disingenuous. Nobody (you 3 don't count) buys macs to run linux or windows - though both run fine. And there are plenty of folks who will tell you that apple phones and tablets are nothing special, hardware-wise.
Apple sells systems. Well integrated, easy to use systems.
I happen to like 'em because they also run *nix. (I don't care that you 3 don't like the flavor)
1. They have to be aggressive because if they don't, someone else will be aggressive to them. It's how it works now.
Is it? You can accumulate a patent arsenal without being the first one to sue. It seems to me that all filing the lawsuit does is serve as an admission to your prospective customers that you can't win on the merits. Winners win, losers litigate.
First, there are so many lawsuits among mobile companies that a single extra one isn't going to have a chilling effect. All of these companies have enough cash that the cost of fighting a lawsuit alone will not hurt them (a big judgement might be a different story).
Secondly, MIcrosoft licensing costs aren't very much for Windows Phone 7. Estimates of licensing costs are between $5 and $15 on a phone that, with a data plan, ultimately costs thousands of dollars. Or, in the case of Nokia, Microsoft is paying Nokia to use it. $5 is still a cost, but it's not the reason people don't like WP7.
Then the article gets plain idiotic. It says Apple makes money on hardware, not on their OS. But this is true of every single Android phone as well.
The next factual error is a surprising one, but still serious. Look at the numbers of iOS vs Android devices. There are a lot more people using iOS than Android (note the figures include tablets). Surprising, but if you're going to write a tech journal you should be on top of this kind of thing.
Finally there is no reason to question why Apple is suing. It's about money. Just like every single other lawsuit in the mobile space. They all think they can get some extra money by suing, so they do.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I seldom worry about apple's lock strategies. Once you start down the road of tight lockin you either have to sue your way out of it, or you are forced to let go.
They are hoping to make the other party let go.
But instead of doing that, Samsung is counter-suing Apple all over the world. This is a good strategy, forcing Apple to fight off of their own turf. Dragging Apple executives half way around the world where they don't have the advantage of pre-filled pockets and rabid fanbois in the jury pool.
In fact Apple could lose big time to this technique. Sure Samsung makes parts for iPhones, but they make pennies on this compared to what they make on a Galaxy handset. Samsung can send Apple packing, and quietly "suggest" a reduction in supply of key components to any other companies that favor Apple too strongly. Apple can not win a land war in Asia.
But more to the point, Apples current round of suits are predominantly alleging that the Galaxy phones look too much like iPhones. This is a really hard claim to win. Nikon and Canon and Minolta as well as Ford and Chevy would get nowhere with that claim. This screams desperation. Especially when Galaxy phones don't look at all like iPhones.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
You have any evidence of this at all? I mean the slightest?
Very few of Microsoft's former mobile partners have agreed to work with WP7. Even Sony, which was exclusively WM6 is now a fierce exclusively Android competitor. Microsoft hasn't sued any of them.
Motorola was on a patent war path. The timing of the Motorola suite suggests that Microsoft sued Motorola on behalf of some of its other hardware partners, which unlike Apple, it desperately needs.
Here's the problem: it's not clear that anyone has ever won a "look and feel" lawsuit. (The legal term is "trade dress.")
Did the author did any research into this statement because Apple has won a "trade dress" lawsuit against eMachines back in 1999.
Nor should they. Fast-following and imitating is a big part of what makes free markets work. It helps competition and helps bring innovations to consumers faster.
There is a difference in copying functionality and copying design. I think if Honda or Toyota were to make bubbly sedans that look very much like the old VW Beetle, VW would have a problem with it even though their current Beetle is no longer as bubbly.
It's the same reason why Microsoft is suing makers of Android phones: to give Android a price.
If that were the case, MS would have sued all Android makers but they didn't. They only went after former customers who abandoned them for Android. If I were to guess the purpose of MS, it would be to keep a place in the market. MS competes directly with Android as makers can pick Android over WP7 when making a phone. MS doesn't want to be left out of any maker's lineups. Apple does not compete directly with Android because Apple sells hardware and the software.
Additionally, Android phones often compete with each other and WP7 on pricing. Most likely, Apple doesn't really care about what Android costs as they are making tons of money anyways. What is the term around here: Android phones are a race to the bottom?
Also if that was the reasoning behind the lawsuit, Apple would have sued more than Samsung for this reason. Why didn't Apple sue other makers over their Android phones for trade dress? Also Apple would have sued Samsung for more than the Galaxy line of products as Samsung sells other Android products. The question then is why Galaxy.
If you look at the Galaxy line, it is the line that looks most like Apple products. Whereas other makers and other Samsung models have different bevels, tapers, corners, etc, the Samsung i9000 specifically looks a lot like the iPhone when both are powered off. Take a look the comparison between a Samsung Galaxy and a Samsung Wave and a HTC D2. Now compare a Galaxy vs iPhone. When powered on, the UI is very similar. Again other makers and models used different UI themes, icons, layouts, etc. The Galaxy is very similar to the iPhone.
Will Apple win and how long will this lawsuit go on? I don't know if Apple will win, but at the very least, Samsung's next Android phone will likely not look anything like the iPhone 4 which is probably what Apple wants.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
No, they don't. That was settled a long time ago when Apple was ruled against in their suit against MS over look and feel. If you look at the previous summary it's very clear that Apple is trying to do an end run around the normal prohibition on suits over look and feel.
Actually, that wasn't why they lost the case. You can certainly protect your look and feel, companies do it every day. Apple lost that particular case, against that particular company, because Microsoft had a license allowing them to use some elements of the GUI. Granted, Apple had foolishly given away much more in that contract than they intended to; if they hadn't, computing would be very different today. And BTW, don't bring up Xerox - they were paid handsomely for their contribution, all nice and legal.
Tag Team effort against Android?
April 2011: Apple sues Samsung over Android
March 2011: Microsoft sues Barnes & Noble, and Foxconn over Android *
December 2010: Sony sues LG over Android
October 2010: Microsoft sues Motorola over Android
August 2010: Oracle sues Google over Android and Java
March 2010: Apple sues HTC over Android
* just when B&N announce the Color Nook as an Android Tablet
Because I'm not a Unix kernel hacker who can write his own kernel. I'm just a student, whose interest in technology doesn't extend to rewriting Unix kernels, as that's too much learning and way out of may chosen career path.
I am a kernel hacker but not all my computers are running custom kernels, far from it. That is because for almost all my machines a standard kernel is perfectly adequate. However, this has not always been the case. From time to time I have had hardware issues that required kernel customization in some way, typically backport of a driver or a driver compiled from vendor source. And of course there are kernels that I compile and install for experimental and development purposes. The fact that I am able to do this is very important. For one thing it allows me to update devices that would otherwise become obsolete and useless. And the fact that other people are able to do it is even more important because I benefit from the work they are able to do.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Desperate?
Am I the only one that caught the fact that Apple is just had YET ANOTHER record quarter?
The fact that Android—which is available on more networks and being built in more price ranges by more manufacturers—is outpacing iOS isn't some kind of surprise. You don't need to own a majority of the market to do well. They were doing well before the iPhone came out without owning a majority of any market they were in.
Are they playing rough, yes. Desperate? http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/21/nokia-apple-idUSLDE73K12P20110421
No, not really. The "real" reason Apple is suing is because they are HISTORICALLY litigious. There's no sales conspiracy needed. It's not some final desperate act. It's standard operating procedure for Apple and has been for years.
This isn't the first time apple has tried to sue over vague look and feel like assholes. Last time, in a saner era (well, apart from the thousands of nukes just waiting to rain down on USA and Russia and anyone in-between), they got their ass handed to them on a plate,
The last time Apple won the case, and eMachines and Future Computers (or something similar) had to stop selling computers that looked like iMacs. Apple had design patents that protected the design of the iMac. They have design patents that protect the design of the iPhone. So I expect the same outcome. Interestingly, eMachines also had a design patent for an all-in-one computer that reminded me strongly of an alien with ears so they must have been aware of the protection that design patents give you; they probably just liked Apple's design of the iMac better than their own.
Certainly the ideas of rectangular device with rounded corners came out before the iPhone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA
Apple does an amazing job of taking ideas from others, and improving those ideas, and doing a great marketing job. But practically ever big idea from Apple, did not originate from Apple.
Apple did not invent:
- the PC
- the GUI
- the mp3 player
- the online music store
- the smart phone
- the tablet computer
- or much of anything else.
So isn't Apple just as much of a "copycat" as anybody?
Umm...no. The reality is almost the exact opposite of your claim. Devices powered by iOS --iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad-- are in fact outselling Android devices by 59% (37.9 million to 23.8 million). The summary also makes the same claim, that "Android is surging past iOS in marketshare", but it's as wrong as you are. Android-powered smartphones are outselling iOS-powered smartphones, but that's collectively; no single manufacturer even comes close to Apple. The iPhone is far and away the best-selling smartphone on the market.
Android proponents (I won't be disrespectful and call them "fanboys") and lazy journalists love to point out the fact that Android is outselling iPhone, but that's disingenuous; they're comparing a platform to a single device. In both platform-to-platform and device-to-device comparisons, Apple is still wa-aay ahead of the competition. At the end of 2010, Android had the largest smartphone market share at 33.3%, Nokia was second with 31%, and Apple third with 16.2% of the global market. Apple's smartphone market share translates to 4.2% of the total market for all mobile phones, and yet Apple is reaping 51% of the total profits of the entire mobile industry. And they're doing it with variations of a single device. That fact certainly gives the lie to the claims that the iPhone is "dead in the water". If these jaw-dropping numbers demonstrate that Apple is "getting desperate", as you claim, then I'm sure their competitors would love a big helping of the desperation they're imbibing.
Apple haters may have their reasons for disliking Apple, but they need to make a reasoned case if they hope to be taken seriously. Blithe disregard for the facts, and trumpeting bizarre assertions as fact, despite all evidence to the contrary, certainly doesn't help their cause. It only lumps them into the same category of fruit loop as the "birthers".
Correct. Microsoft basically outmaneuvered Apple. They requested a license, based on the pretext that they could potentially be sued for using Apple's user interface elements in their own Mac software (Excel and Word). Apple did not see them as a user-interface competitor, because Microsoft's version of a windowed interface was quite different, using "tiled" rather than overlapping windows. But the elements that Microsoft requested a license for were precisely those that were most unique to Apple. As soon as Microsoft had the license, they released a version of Windows that copied the overall style of the Mac OS, as well as Apple's special flourishes. Apple did not have a legal leg to stand on. But Apple's loss was not based upon a court rejection of "look and feel" lawsuits. In fact, many such lawsuits over the years have been successful.