Slashdot Mirror


Samsung May Try To Block Next iPhone In Europe Too

phonewebcam writes with a report in The Register about the ongoing spat between Samsung and Apple. From the article: "Samsung could try to get the iPhone 5 delayed or banned in Europe, a source has told South Korea's Maeil Business Newspaper today. The Korean giant is considering a lawsuit against the next version of the Apple smartphone due in October, in the expectation that iPhone 5 will make use of some basic telecoms technology that Samsung has patented. ... It comes a day after The Korea Times quoted an anonymous Samsung exec saying that the company would attempt to do the same thing in Korea."

271 comments

  1. The cliche practically coined for this occasion... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Turnabout is fair play."

  2. sit back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My popcorn. MINE!

  3. Isn't it great to see by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Isn't it great to see someone turn round to a bully and say "no you give me your lunch money muthufucah"

    1. Re:Isn't it great to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Yes, I'm glad its a government subsidized crap manufacturer err I mean innovator like Samsung though.

    2. Re:Isn't it great to see by Tsingi · · Score: 2

      Someone bruise your apple?

    3. Re:Isn't it great to see by andydread · · Score: 1

      Bonch? is that you?

    4. Re:Isn't it great to see by maxume · · Score: 2

      How do you pick the bully when you are discussing enormous multinational consumer electronics companies using the legal system to try to disrupt their competitors?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:Isn't it great to see by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Steve Jobs was notorious for bullying his employees. I had always hoped that one day I would see the headline "Berated Employee Finally Loses It and Kicks Steve Jobs Right in the Fucking Pancreas." Sadly, no one ever had the guts (or maybe his fanatical employees considered anything short of prostrating themselves in front of their messiah to be blasphemy).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    6. Re:Isn't it great to see by robthebloke · · Score: 1

      I assume you haven't been reading the news recently? I think most people have a fairly good idea of who they think the bully is in this situation.....

    7. Re:Isn't it great to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You don't pick which one is the bully. What you do is cheer that they are suing each other over things like patents, "look and feel", etc. You hope that they do it more and more. You want it to get to the point where their use of the legal system for these issues starts to cost them real money and they have to pay exorbitant legal costs and licensing fees. It needs to raise the price of their devices significantly and cause a drop in sales and in profits. Only then will they spend their money on fixing the system instead of on abusing it.

    8. Re:Isn't it great to see by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      Sadly, no one ever had the guts

      How would you know?

    9. Re:Isn't it great to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      source?

    10. Re:Isn't it great to see by BasilBrush · · Score: 0, Troll

      What's up? You couldn't afford an iPhone?

    11. Re:Isn't it great to see by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, I never got past the "You must be at least this arrogant to enter" sign at the Apple Store entrance.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    12. Re:Isn't it great to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I never got past the "You must be at least this arrogant to enter" sign at the Apple Store entrance.

      Blessed are the humble and meek, for they shall inherit ... uhm .... what nobody else wants

    13. Re:Isn't it great to see by maxume · · Score: 0

      I am perfectly aware that Apple is getting the bad guy props.

      The question is, why would an individual choose such an emotionally loaded way to relate to a legal battle between giant multinational corporations, a legal battle that results from a patent system that has not kept up with the times, a legal battle where both sides of the action are evidence of the breakage?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    14. Re:Isn't it great to see by cyfer2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are wrong, my friend, wrong. Samsung runs the country.

      --
      There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
    15. Re:Isn't it great to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On folklore one guy who said that when he had enough of Jobs would urinate on Jobs' desk. When he walked in to resign Jobs asked was he really going to do it.

    16. Re:Isn't it great to see by killmenow · · Score: 2

      I believe what tends to happen in cases like this, where there is such disdain for the patent mess and the general notion of competition by litigation, is people tend to dislike the perceived aggressor the most.

      Apple is clearly the perceived aggressor, having started the litigation in this scenario. And Samsung is seen as defending itself. Had Samsung instigated this particular fight, they would be "rooted against" so to speak, excepting a certain anti-Applie contingent that will always hate and root against Apple even if they're giving away food to starving people in third world countries.

    17. Re:Isn't it great to see by Xyde · · Score: 1

      Funny, if there were a slashdot filter for the same we might not even be reading this

    18. Re:Isn't it great to see by maxume · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I get that, I'm trying to point out that it is stupid.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    19. Re:Isn't it great to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that explains his need for multiple liver transplants.

      *ducks!*

    20. Re:Isn't it great to see by Kartu · · Score: 1

      Because iPhone is so much more expensive than competing products, eh?
      Last time I've checked, Samsung & HTC products weren't particularly cheap either, costing 500 Euro-ish.

    21. Re:Isn't it great to see by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      And did he?

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    22. Re:Isn't it great to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.google.com/search?q=samsung+sues+-apple - notice how "Samsung" always stands before "sues"? Bully indeed.

    23. Re:Isn't it great to see by increment1 · · Score: 1

      excepting a certain anti-Applie contingent that will always hate and root against Apple even if they're giving away food to starving people in third world countries.

      Which is probably balanced by the pro-Apple contingent who will always root for Apple even if they are bbq'ing and eating the starving people in third world countries.

    24. Re:Isn't it great to see by killmenow · · Score: 1

      lol. touche

    25. Re:Isn't it great to see by sjames · · Score: 1

      The one that initiated hostilities. Helpful hint, Samsung hasn't been waving dubious patents on rectangles around.

    26. Re:Isn't it great to see by maxume · · Score: 1

      Why pick sides at all in a patent battle between multinational legal fictions?

      I guess it is okay to hope for a citizen friendly outcome.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    27. Re:Isn't it great to see by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I can't see any reason why such a sign would be difficult for you to get past. Unless it made the door too narrow for your head to pass.

    28. Re:Isn't it great to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, yeah, first "AU Optronics Sues Samsung, AT&T Over LCD Patent Infringement ..."-like result is on 3rd page, whereas for http://www.google.com/search?q=samsung+sues+-apple I clicked through to the 13th page (Google told me that I look like a bot then, so i stopped) and didn't find one.

    29. Re:Isn't it great to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoops, of course I meant "... http://www.google.com/search?q=apple+sues+-samsung I clicked through to the 13th ..."

    30. Re:Isn't it great to see by zuperduperman · · Score: 1

      How do you pick the bully when you are discussing enormous multinational consumer electronics companies using the legal system to try to disrupt their competitors?

      One is outputting numerous products and competing quality and satisfying consumers. The other makes hardly any products, updates them just once every 18 months or so but while doing nothing with their own products spends huge on lawyers to use dodgy tactics to delay competitors.

    31. Re:Isn't it great to see by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Only by people who do not understand what Samsung is, a government assisted mega corp, that builds almost everything, and is heavily involved in corruption in South Korea. They make Apple and Microsoft look good.

    32. Re:Isn't it great to see by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      If you're going to spend iPhone amounts of money, one might as well get a real iPhone, rather than an imitation.

  4. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Wolfling1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or... payback's a bitch.

  5. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't help but crack a smile. Go Samsung! :D

  6. Fight! by Per+Wigren · · Score: 1

    May the Messier object win...

    --
    My other account has a 3-digit UID.
    1. Re:Fight! by justleavealonemmmkay · · Score: 1

      Well, the Galaxy might be a Messier object, but it iPhone 5 isn't.

      or was that the pun...

    2. Re:Fight! by Iskender · · Score: 1

      Since all I can see is an unspecified galaxy I'm thinking it's much more likely to be an NGC object.

    3. Re:Fight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that's the joke.
      The iPhone is really more of a Messiah Object.

  7. Today the iPhone... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

    ... Tomorrow HTC, Nokia, Motorola, Sony Ericsson, LG...

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re:Today the iPhone... by Aladrin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they decide to block Samsung's products with frivolous lawsuits, then yeah... I expect that's what'll happen.

      But so far, it's only Apple that's tried that.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    2. Re:Today the iPhone... by myurr · · Score: 1

      Hopefully all those manufacturers will be looking at the bullshit lawsuits Apple has been firing around to get Samsungs products blocked from various market and will be wondering if they're next. Maybe then they will all work together to try and get IP law brought up to date into a more sensible form that benefits all, as was originally intended, rather than a select few who game the system.

    3. Re:Today the iPhone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I(and i guess everyone) understand and agree with your point, but it would be worth it for once to watch apple's assholes getting a taste of their own bullshit.

    4. Re:Today the iPhone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I image they already have the patents cross licensed. Apple is the new kid on the block establishing herself.

    5. Re:Today the iPhone... by cyfer2000 · · Score: 1

      Great, people can get out their bathrooms, finally.

      --
      There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
    6. Re:Today the iPhone... by Elbart · · Score: 2

      It's all about deterrence. All the companies could sue each other until the end of time, but they aren't or weren't, because it hurts the business. Unless it was some blantant and stupid rip-off. Apple said F IT and sued Samsung over rectangles and glass front and other obvious stuff, so Samsung goes nuclear, too.

    7. Re:Today the iPhone... by EEPROMS · · Score: 1

      Err, you do realise last year Samsung was third when it came to the total quantity of patents awarded. FYI Apple isn't even in the top 10.

    8. Re:Today the iPhone... by RazorSharp · · Score: 2

      If it was so obvious, then how come pre-iPhone every smartphone was either a Blackberry or a Blackberry wannabe? Post-iPhone practically every phone on the market looks like an iPhone, works like an iPhone, and RIM is a financial mess and also utilizing the 'copy-Apple' playbook.

      I guess that's the problem with Apple's minimalist designs. It's always 'obvious' after they come out.

      Really, this is Samsung's fault. All they had to do is use icons that differentiated the phone from the iPhone but instead they wanted their product to be mistaken for an iPhone, right down the the icons and the little spinny-loading thing. At least when Windows came out, they called the trash can the 'recycling bin' and moved the desktop icons from the right side of the screen to the left and used an hourglass loading icon. At least they were semi-conscious of copying.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  8. Noooooo!!!! by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    It was as if millions of European hipsters suddenly cried out in pain, and were suddenly silenced.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Noooooo!!!! by lfourrier · · Score: 1

      Yesssssssssss!

    2. Re:Noooooo!!!! by moronoxyd · · Score: 1

      I might be wrong, but I seem to remember that the market share of Apple is higher in the US than in Europe...

    3. Re:Noooooo!!!! by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      I might be wrong, but I seem to remember that the market share of Apple is higher in the US than in Europe...

      But unless they have an extremely high level of empathy they won't be crying out in pain over the next iPhone being blocked in Europe

    4. Re:Noooooo!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm samsung is the new hipster phone after all iPhone is for your parents
      learn modern trends before comenting

    5. Re:Noooooo!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like Greedo did shoot first after all.

    6. Re:Noooooo!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and it was a surprisingly high pitched noise...

    7. Re:Noooooo!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have hipsters?

    8. Re:Noooooo!!!! by Kvasio · · Score: 1

      yes!

      This way my iphone 4 remains relevant longer than expected :-)

  9. Problem by should_be_linear · · Score: 4, Funny

    it would be great idea, but Apple and Microsoft already have "being an asshole" patent in their pool.

    --
    839*929
    1. Re:Problem by Tsingi · · Score: 4, Funny

      it would be great idea, but Apple and Microsoft already have "being an asshole" patent in their pool.

      You can't patent that, too much prior art.

    2. Re:Problem by ciderbrew · · Score: 2

      They'll try and get it too. just you watch.

    3. Re:Problem by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I don't know. I hear Sony recently patented "being clueless douchebags" and that had plenty of prior art.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:Problem by Tsingi · · Score: 2

      Oh yeah, first to file. :)

    5. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that honour goes to Unix sysadmins. We were assholes long before Microsoft or Apple thought to be.

      (and yes, I'm a long-time Unix sysadmin)

    6. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. I hear Sony recently patented "being clueless douchebags"

      Yeah, but they screwed up the application process...

    7. Re:Problem by Aeiri · · Score: 1

      No, Microsoft and Apple are assholes. Unix sysadmins are bastards.

      Source

    8. Re:Problem by slydder · · Score: 0

      I thought Yahoo got that one? did I miss something?

    9. Re:Problem by gutnor · · Score: 1

      You patent a specific implementation, not the concept. That's not only the designers and engineers that are able to "Think Different" at Apple.

    10. Re:Problem by DCFusor · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is that prior art is patented regularly. Just try to get a patent, no matter how obviously bad, dismissed. It only takes >$1 mil, and maybe a few years, during which you can't do business.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    11. Re:Problem by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is that prior art is patented regularly. Just try to get a patent, no matter how obviously bad, dismissed. It only takes >$1 mil, and maybe a few years, during which you can't do business.

      Yes that was a joke.

      The current state of the world is corporate controlled fascist dictatorship. Not a joke. Corporations own and control everything, and short of revolution (they are happening here and there), there is fuck all you can do about it.

    12. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought Yahoo got that one? did I miss something?

      Yeah, you'd think the USPTO would have noticed that. Wait, they've got prior art... :P

    13. Re:Problem by sjames · · Score: 1

      Well, the USPTO has been circling the drain for a while now...

    14. Re:Problem by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but this is "Being an Asshole with a Smartphone", which is different, because the patents on "Being an Asshole on the Internet" are about to expire.

      It's like the drug companies adding a tiny inert ingredient to a 'new' drug.

    15. Re:Problem by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      It's like the drug companies adding a tiny inert ingredient to a 'new' drug.

      Sneaky, I never heard of that one.

    16. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nurse, get the Haldol.

  10. Good times by Parker+Lewis · · Score: 2

    Good times when devices get a battle on technological specs, features and UI, not on tribunals.

    1. Re:Good times by digitalsolo · · Score: 2

      That would require actual innovation and effort in engineering.

      Lawsuits require much less effort. If nothing else they slow the release of the products and give themselves a head start. It's a "can't lose" situation.

      --
      Just another ignorant American.
  11. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What comes around goes around"

  12. "It's okay when we do it" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is blatant abuse of patent law and we need reform NOW. Information should be free and software patents are stupid and this is ridicul....

    Wait, someone is doing this to Apple?

    FUCK YEAH, it's about fuckin' time! This is awesome and I fully support this, go Samsung, FUCK YOU APPLE!! I HOPE YOU GET CANCER STEVE JOBS!!!!!

    1. Re:"It's okay when we do it" by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's sort of like when you hear that someone got attacked by a pit bull. You feel sorry for them at first. But then you learn it was Hitler.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:"It's okay when we do it" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that we support it, it's that it's nice to see Apple get a taste of their own medicine. Ideally, I'd rather no companies had their products banned like this, even though I do hate the iphone.

    3. Re:"It's okay when we do it" by stevedog · · Score: 2

      I don't think many of us would have supported this if it came out of nowhere. It didn't even come out of a response to Apple suing them. It came about because Samsung tried to trust the courts to issue the only ruling that made any sense at all... And instead they got their product banned from sale. What do you expect them to do, sit back and say, "man, this sucks"? They are only playing by the rules that a major first-world country defined, and even then only because they really have no other choice.

    4. Re:"It's okay when we do it" by cyfer2000 · · Score: 1

      You hate the iphone or the people associated with iphone?

      --
      There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
    5. Re:"It's okay when we do it" by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not quite as simple as you make it sound.

      Apple has been slapping Samsung with weak "look and feel" patents.

      Samsung is firing back with a bunch of core hardware patents... The patents they're using are closer in idea to what the patent system was originally designed for, as opposed to Apple patents which are an abuse of the patent system.

      There is also the fact that Samsung is using these in a defensive role... Apple are a bunch of douchebags who rather than seek reasonable licensing fees (this happens a LOT and you never hear about it because sane companies ask for reasonable and non-excessive fees), immediately seek injunctions to have devices removed from the market.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    6. Re:"It's okay when we do it" by Desler · · Score: 1

      So it's not that you support it, it's just that you....support it and cheering it on. Way to be a hypocrite. And seriously you hate the phone? Do you have no life at all to get worked up over something so trivial as a phone?

    7. Re:"It's okay when we do it" by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Just because you disagree with a court decision doesn't mean it "doesn't have any sense at all". Even tech review sites were saying the Galaxy looked exactly like an iPhone. It's hardly a stretch to imagine a court would think the same.

      Note that they didn't say that about other Android phones or devices, and that no other Android devices have had injunctions.

      I personally think the whole situation is silly, and is bad PR for Apple, but I can't argue that she decision doesn't make sense - the Galaxy S is pretty much an iPhone 3GS clone, down to the UI and there was no need for it - there are plenty of other Android touchscreen smartphones that don't look exactly like iPhones.

    8. Re:"It's okay when we do it" by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      This is blatant abuse of patent law and we need reform NOW. Information should be free and software patents are stupid and this is ridicul....

      Wait, someone is doing this to Apple?

      FUCK YEAH, it's about fuckin' time! This is awesome and I fully support this, go Samsung, FUCK YOU APPLE!! I HOPE YOU GET CANCER STEVE JOBS!!!!!

      LOL.

      The group mentality of group mentality is that group mentality is mental.

  13. Who likes Apple, and why?! by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    Who likes Apple, and why?!

    Samsung has all the sympathy due to Apple's pathetic and strung-up attempts to block a winning competitor.

    Couldn't we just agree to dismiss Apple to the garbage bin? The world would be such a better place without them, copy-cats.

    They are even rivals to Microsoft and SCO as to retarded campaigns.

    1. Re:Who likes Apple, and why?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i guess there is such a thing as an android fanboy

    2. Re:Who likes Apple, and why?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Golly, talk about a fan boy, wow.

    3. Re:Who likes Apple, and why?! by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Clearly a paid Android shill.

      Try to be more subtle next time.

      (note: some or all of this message may be hyperbole).

    4. Re:Who likes Apple, and why?! by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry are you being sarcastic?

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  14. well then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps it wasn't such a great idea to get the Galaxy Tab banned in europe?

    1. Re:well then by Skuto · · Score: 1

      Europe =/= Germany. Not that they didn't try, though. Apple *and* the Germans, that is.

  15. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by killmenow · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Never go against a Korean...when DEATH is on the line!!!"

  16. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
     
    In this case, if Samsung does block the phone, the laws that surround the previous problem will only be given more strength.
     
    For all the complaining that I hear around here about IP laws it seems that people don't have a problem with them if they are used to promote their own fanboy fantasies.

  17. I'm not sure which is worse... by inviolet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Choose one:

    • * egregious espionage and mutual ripoffs of billions of R&D investments that then become unrecoverable, or
    • * constant ongoing patent wars that chew up hundreds of millions in legal costs and require billions of investment into patent warchests

    The whole situation has happened before, though. 150 years ago we had a similar war over the patents for sewing machines. It eventually led to the Sewing Machine Combination, which was a patent pool that created a 20-year cartel of four manufacturers. They were the only ones allowed to produce cutting-edge sewing machines.

    Notably, the next major innovation in sewing machines (the rotary hook) sat unexploited until the combination expired in 1876 (sources here and here.

    --
    FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    1. Re:I'm not sure which is worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Doesn't really matter. Only one group really wins... the lawyers

    2. Re:I'm not sure which is worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, I wish we witness a patent holocaust, some kind of disaster in the IT ecosystem because of these damn patents, that would FINALLY trigger a reform. Only that will wake up the government from its lethargy.

  18. No one can... by JavaBear · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Basically, with the current climate in the patent world, no one can really produce anything as complex as a smartphone, that does not infringe on someone else's patents or design.

    1. Re:No one can... by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      Climate change could be good... in the Patent World. Global warming in the Patent World might cause such violent storms that the ensuing peace would be a long time of great calm. A new age of the Patent World, in which technology will thrive without the chaos caused by unstable patents.

      (Feels weird writing new age stuff.)

    2. Re:No one can... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Companies buy off the shelf components made by the usual fab plants. Problems start when big runs ask for proprietary versions of the components, particularly ICs, and not have a license to use them, or thinking no one will find out what naughtiness they've been up to. Apple patent trivial stuff because they don't invent anything. They pull components from other companies' catalogs and put them together, then try and control form of the casing as if it was a valid invention. If there was no catalogs, Apple would be truly fucked, unlike the likes of Samsung.

      Apple also know they're illegally using other companies' tech, they start to discuss licensing them but decide they don't want to take the hit in their huge profit margins, believing they'll be better off in courts, maybe even getting into a patent sharing agreement. Yes, they want everyone else's tech and want to share shit like curved corners.

    3. Re:No one can... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is however a difference between the patent for LTE technology and the patent for unlocking a device by sliding your finger over the screen

    4. Re:No one can... by Hieronymus+Howard · · Score: 2

      Every smartphone manufacturer seems to be suing every other manufacturer. So if we take this to it's ultimate conclusion, then nobody will be able to release any smartphones, as all other manufacturers will be blocking them. Mabe if that happens, then we'll might see some sanity return.

    5. Re:No one can... by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Smartphones have been around since 1992

      Cellphones since 1979

      How old does technology have to get before we can pry it out of the hands of the Patent holders ....

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    6. Re:No one can... by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      God forbid the Mouse ever patents anything of significance given what they have done to copyright terms.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  19. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Wovel · · Score: 2

    Or cutting off your nose to spite your face is fair play bitch. Samsung makes more money selling iPhones than Samsung phones...I would imagine it is quite a bit more profitable too.

  20. Greed shot first by srussia · · Score: 1

    Han is just shooting back.

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
  21. Unlikely by Comboman · · Score: 2

    Unlikely, except perhaps for Nokia, since the others are all Android phone makers and the patents Samsung is using were borrowed from Google.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    1. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation? Source?

      I'm pretty sure Samsung, having been around for quite some time and in many different segments of electronics has quite a few patents that aren't "borrowed" from Google.

    2. Re:Unlikely by Altus · · Score: 1

      The grandparent is thinking of HTC.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  22. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by ArhcAngel · · Score: 3, Informative

    In this case I think

    “You don't mess with the 800 pound gorilla!”

    is more apropos. Samsung is the GE of S. Korea

    Here is a list of industries under Samsung

    Electronics
    Shipbuilder
    Financial
    Chemical
    Retail
    Entertainment
    Flash memory
    Aviation
    Optical storage
    Mobile phones
    Smartphones
    Hard disk drives

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  23. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by erroneus · · Score: 2

    That's not entirely true.

    There are two ways sanity will get restored. One, someone in government wakes up one day and says "hey, this is a very stupid situation. I think we need to fix it so that this doesn't happen any longer!" The other is to allow and even promote stupidity to grow beyond absurdity at which point there will be no choice but t fix the problem.

    I suspect we expect the second way to prevail in this case as any attempt to fix the problem now will result in massive resistance by players who presently benefit from things as they are.

  24. Isn't this bad for Samsung? by Arrepiadd · · Score: 1

    I know they're just fighting Apple on the same grounds but... with all the fanboys just waiting for the newest super greatest next product from Apple, won't this just hurt Samsung in the long run?
    A pissed customer may never come back.

    1. Re:Isn't this bad for Samsung? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple fanboys are pathetic. Worthless hipster DOUCHEBAGS that don't know anything about technology and just buy the latest shiny device because a fancy commercial convinces them that they need it.

      OMFG DROID BIONIC????!!! HOLY FUCKIN SHIT, that thing looks fuckin AWESOME. omfg DUAL CORE PROCESSOR and LTE, this thing makes my Thunderbolt that I just bought last month look like a pile of puke. I need that, I'm buying that the DAY IT COMES OUT.

      Anyway, Apple fanboys are stupid and just buy the newest super greatest next product based on hype.

    2. Re:Isn't this bad for Samsung? by erroneus · · Score: 2

      It's worse if you allow a competitor (who is also a customer) limit your ability to do business.

      Sometimes it's better to ignore bullies. But this is a bully bullying a bully. And this bully, in Korea, is treated as royalty. This bully's bully has the war-making backing and influence of their government. If you think the influence of business over government in the US is bad, you haven't seen what Samsung's influence over Korea is like.

    3. Re:Isn't this bad for Samsung? by Arrepiadd · · Score: 1

      I understand that Samsung may have very loyal fans in Korea but this story is about Europe. Samsung may not be able to fight off Apple in the US but going and screwing Europeans hardly seems like an appropriate answer.

      The problem here is how the patent system is being abused but the end result is millions across Europe may see themselves unable to buy iPhone 5. I couldn't care less, my cell phone does all I need but for some people having the latest gadget is the most important thing. If you see yourself unable to do so and find out the reason is company X put Apple on the courts, the random luser will hate company X, without trying to figure out why it did so in the first place...

    4. Re:Isn't this bad for Samsung? by sosume · · Score: 1

      You could say the same about Apple. I think there are way more people with Samsung products that people with Apple products, therefore, according to your logic, Apple is screwed.

    5. Re:Isn't this bad for Samsung? by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Apple fanboys are pathetic. Worthless hipster DOUCHEBAGS that don't know anything about technology and just buy the latest shiny device because a fancy commercial convinces them that they need it.

      OMFG DROID BIONIC????!!! HOLY FUCKIN SHIT, that thing looks fuckin AWESOME. omfg DUAL CORE PROCESSOR and LTE, this thing makes my Thunderbolt that I just bought last month look like a pile of puke. I need that, I'm buying that the DAY IT COMES OUT.

      Anyway, Apple fanboys are stupid and just buy the newest super greatest next product based on hype.

      Its nice to see a reasoned and balanced argument here

    6. Re:Isn't this bad for Samsung? by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      My guess is that most people see this as Samsung fighting back, so they are more likely going to be given a free pass. Now if Apple would offer to drop this whole nonsense and Samsung would continue to pursue them, that would likely turn public opinion against them.

      Also Apple is in a somewhat unfortunate position here, because it's easy to understand why their patents on a rather trivial shape are stupid. I've worked a long time in telecom, so I suspect Samsung's patents might be just as stupid - most patents are. However that's not as easy to see unless you are really deep in the technology, so people are more likely to believe that Samsung has something really significant there.

    7. Re:Isn't this bad for Samsung? by Cerium · · Score: 1

      If they were going to buy an iPhone5, they probably weren't Samsung's customer to begin with (at least, not in the mobile phone market, anyway).

      I can see the potential for the loss of a customer in other markets if the person in question decides to swear off all Samsung products as a result. But, really, if such a person were to blindly declare such a thing without at least looking into the cause/effect relationship that we've been watching over the last couple years, should Samsung even care?

    8. Re:Isn't this bad for Samsung? by Arrepiadd · · Score: 1

      My "logic" does not say anything about reciprocity. The difference in this case is Apple sells loads of iPhones and everyone knows what they are, whereas if you ask a random person what does the Samsung Galaxy S look like they won't know (obviously I'm not talking about us at Slashdot). A lot of people care about the iPhone and everyone knows what it is, a few people feel the same way about the Galaxy S.

    9. Re:Isn't this bad for Samsung? by X.25 · · Score: 1

      I understand that Samsung may have very loyal fans in Korea but this story is about Europe. Samsung may not be able to fight off Apple in the US but going and screwing Europeans hardly seems like an appropriate answer.

      Actually, Samsung has very loyal fans all over the world. They're just not suffering from inferiority complex and don't see a brand as a religion, so you don't hear much from them.

      They just like using good quality products which Samsung makes.

      They are not emotionally attached to them.

    10. Re:Isn't this bad for Samsung? by phonewebcam · · Score: 1

      Just as many will swear *on* to Samsung as a result of this action.

    11. Re:Isn't this bad for Samsung? by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Note the iPhone contains quite a few components made by ... Samsung (they are one of the major manufacturers of Semiconductors)

      The Apple A4 processor that is the heart of the iPhone is made by ... Samsung

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    12. Re:Isn't this bad for Samsung? by molnarcs · · Score: 1

      It's worse if you allow a competitor (who is also a customer) limit your ability to do business.

      Sometimes it's better to ignore bullies. But this is a bully bullying a bully. And this bully, in Korea, is treated as royalty. This bully's bully has the war-making backing and influence of their government. If you think the influence of business over government in the US is bad, you haven't seen what Samsung's influence over Korea is like.

      I second that. Korean national pride borders on racism sometimes. You know what happened when KT (Korea Telecom) came out with the Nexus One opening the gates for the first series of really usable (Froyo) Samsung, LG, etc. Android based smartphones? The iOS market collapsed within one year! iOS went from 60% marketshare to just 3-5. In the first three months after the Nexus launch iOS marketshare fell a whopping 40% - in three months!!! People actually sold their iShinys to buy smartphones from Korean manufacturers because they were good enough. Koreans buy Korean products. Check the numbers for yourself.

    13. Re:Isn't this bad for Samsung? by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Apple doesn't suffer in this way, why should Samsung? Do you think Europeans will take sides because Europe prefers Apple? I imagine Europeans are slightly more enlightened than US Americans and will not react in this way when they didn't when Apple did it.

    14. Re:Isn't this bad for Samsung? by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Apple fanboys are pathetic. Worthless hipster DOUCHEBAGS that don't know anything about technology and just buy the latest shiny device because a fancy commercial convinces them that they need it.

      OMFG DROID BIONIC????!!! HOLY FUCKIN SHIT, that thing looks fuckin AWESOME. omfg DUAL CORE PROCESSOR and LTE, this thing makes my Thunderbolt that I just bought last month look like a pile of puke. I need that, I'm buying that the DAY IT COMES OUT.

      Anyway, Apple fanboys are stupid and just buy the newest super greatest next product based on hype.

      With proponents like this one, I can see why *this* is the year of Linux on the desktop at last.

    15. Re:Isn't this bad for Samsung? by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      You overestimate the number of people who follow slashdot or tech press. This will be reported in the news as "Samsung sues Apple to try and block iPhone sales" with a tag line like "ongoing legal difficulties between the two giants" and they'll just be annoyed that the iPhone might be delayed assuming they were planning on getting one.

    16. Re:Isn't this bad for Samsung? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Apple fanbois would never have bought a Samsung product anyway. First, it wasn't an iThing, second, the holy temple is at war with Samsung.

      Samsung loses nothing here.

    17. Re:Isn't this bad for Samsung? by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      You're the second person I've seen refer to Samsung products as 'quality.' They make cheap shit.

      Car analogy: A Maserati owner is more likely to be proud of their car (I mean, suffer an 'inferiority complex and see the brand as a religion') than a Chevy Aveo owner. And Chevy Aveo owners are more likely to spite those with nice cars and assume that having good taste is elitist snobbery.

      Quality. I don't think that word means what you think it means. It doesn't mean functional. It means better than functional.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  25. Shouldn't that be RAND anyway? by Quila · · Score: 1

    If these are core cell patents, they would be RAND, and I can't see why Apple wouldn't have already licensed them.

    Unless Samsung is trying to pull another Nokia, and that didn't work.

    1. Re:Shouldn't that be RAND anyway? by Wovel · · Score: 1

      Samsung hasn't actually done anything. I am sure some middle manager spouted off about getting back at Apple in Europe when the iPhone 5 comes out and then one reporter devised it must be true and now all the rumor and tech sites post it as fact.

    2. Re:Shouldn't that be RAND anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The RAND rules are ambiguous..., nd it did work for Nokia. Apple settled with them

  26. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Informative

    I can't speak for "people"; but my hope from such mutually destructive activity is that (at the cost of considerable short-term mayhem) it will make the present arrangement untenably expensive even for the incumbent patentholders. Essentially, the present patent system is hopelessly over-determined(in the sense that pretty much any action is covered by numerous broad, sometimes overlapping, patents held by multiple entities, and the cost of securing licenses for them all exceeds the value of almost any action); but survives because it is rather loosely and selectively enforced. Strengthening it will serve to bring its faults into sharper focus.

    Historically, you had the patent trolls sucking blood on the sidelines, and the little guys getting squished; but a more or less cold-war environment between the major players. Some sabre rattling and money moving about; but nothing that really upset the status quo. However, if it gets to the point where entire flagship product launches can be, and sometimes are, scotched by patent complaints to any one of an alphabet soup of assorted regulatory bodies, I suspect that the pressure to change the situation will be considerably greater.

    As long as the major players can use patents to their advantage, at the (comparatively minor) cost of paying off a troll now and again, the situation will not change. If the pain moves sufficiently far up the food chain that nobody can ship anything, I'm guessing that the congresscritters of the world will be prodded into action...

  27. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    No - Samsung is making some money off of components, but Apple is the one getting the lion's share of the profit.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  28. dammit by killmenow · · Score: 1

    I already posted in this thread or I would mod you up.

  29. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    That might be why they are aiming at the upcoming iPhone, not the present one...

    Apple, so rumor has, has been reducing the Samsung slice of the BOM substantially of late(A4, Samsung, A5, somebody else, I'm not sure what they are doing for flash memory...), out of some mixture of desire to get a better deal and reprisal against a competitor. Once the slice falls below a certain level, it stops making sense to tolerate Apple's legal shenanigans in order to move more components, and starts making sense to take action to protect your ability to move finished products.

  30. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think what you mean to say is "utilizing F/RAND patents like this will lead to Samsung being bitchslapped in court."

  31. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well they got my full support and i can count a good number more as well .. screw you apple shisters

  32. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Wovel · · Score: 1

    Samsung presumably sells their components at a profit....

  33. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Threni · · Score: 1

    Yes, but I'd imagine the markup is a little higher on a device you build and sell yourself...

  34. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Wovel · · Score: 1

    Samsung will still be making the A5. The rumors are that TSMC will make the A6. I can see why you would dump a supplier that steals your designs. I can't see why you would dump attack a massive customer of one of the conglomerates core businesses just to prop up the mobile division.

  35. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If that were true Apple wouldn't hold a commanding 2/3rds of all smartphone profits globally would they?

  36. Lawsuit seeks injunction against sale, news at 11 by homsar · · Score: 1

    Pretty much all of the dozens of ongoing patent lawsuits try to block imports, because generally that's the best way to do damage even if you can't ultimately win the suit (which is likely, given the propensity of settlements, not that the injuctions are much more common – the threats just make for good headlines). The only one to succeed so far is Apple's suit, which was based on design patents rather than technical patents (as Samsung's seem to be).

  37. Isn't this escalation? by MrMickS · · Score: 2

    Afterall I didn't think Apple were suing over patents, instead it was over the fact that Samsung had ripped off the iPhone interface for the Galaxy S etc. If Samsung went back to a more standard Android application launcher they could probably get this whole sorry mess sorted. Instead they are defending their right to use the the interface that Apple developed.

    I thought that the patent infringement cases were with HTC.

    --
    You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
    1. Re:Isn't this escalation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nope. The injunction was under the insane and ridiculously vague EU Community Design system. Specifically, apple drew something vaguely tablet-like on the back of a napkin before the ipad even existed, filed it - which results in automatic approval - then used it to sue Samsung years later, being sure to file in Germany since there's no requirement to inform the other party there.

    2. Re:Isn't this escalation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hit'em where it hurts? Never fight fair... etc.

    3. Re:Isn't this escalation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It very obviously is.

      I think Samsung really wants to make a point across. Like "inviolet" said above... these companies all have their warchest of patent nukes and seems like Samsung wants to show they're not afraid to use theirs. What everyone wants to know is if this will explode into full-blown patent armaggedon or if they'll just chillax and make a patent pool, or somethingz (royaltie$ yum yum).

      It seems Samsung wants to show it cannot be bullied around?

      (like a bawss)

    4. Re:Isn't this escalation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As a Galaxy Tab owner.. I can safely say you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Stop looking at Apple propaganda (their submitted evidence purposefully misleads the viewer by comparing the home screen of the iOS to the application list of Android 3.1).

      The GT uses the standard Android 3.1 "desktop" -- multiple virtual desktops with user configurable application links and widgets. It even has the standard four (err, three) android (virtual) buttons at the bottom:

      To better understand, compare the real home screens of these two devices

      http://developer.android.com/sdk/images/3.1/home_full.png
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IPad_2_White_Front.jpg

      While they are of course similar (in the same way a Ford is necessarily similar to a Chevy) they are none the less highly distinctive even to a laymen.

    5. Re:Isn't this escalation? by SuperDre · · Score: 1

      If it really was about the interface/design then why is Samsung the only one which was targeted, even though there are many more manufactures which look much MUCH more like the iPad/iPhone.. no the only reason why apple targeted Samsung is because Samsung actually had good/better hardware and was really a threat to Apple.. I really hope Samsung succeeds in blocking the iPhone 5..

    6. Re:Isn't this escalation? by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Instead [Samsung] are defending their right to use the the interface that Apple developed.

      That's Apple's take on the matter, anyway. Most sane people think they're full of shit.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    7. Re:Isn't this escalation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly enough
      The article suggests that if Samsung can win the appeal (which isn't really an appeal, but the first actual case), they can sue for damages.

      That could result in a HUGE punishment to apple, as the damages have been vast.

  38. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Missing.Matter · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wow... I had no idea Samsung was so big.

    Samsung / Apple

    • Revenue: US$ 172.5b / US$ 65.23b
    • Net Profit: US$ 13.8b / US$ 14.01b
    • Total assets: US$ 294.5b / US$ 75.18b
    • Total equity: US$ 112.5b / US$ 47.79b
    • Employees: 276,000 / 49,400
  39. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by sosume · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Apple has changed to many other suppliers for its components (the A5 chip comes to mind) so this argument is not valid anymore. Samsung stated that at first, they bent over and let Apple have their way in order to keep a 'healthy' business relation. But after the Galaxy line got blocked in the EU, generating a huge loss, Apple choosing other manufacturers over Samsung, and still acting like a small female dog over patents, Samsung has become quite angry and now Pandora's box is open it seems. I sincerely hope they destroy Apple or at least let them bleed with their childish tactics: crying that they are the underdog while suing all competition out of the market.

  40. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by magsk · · Score: 1

    live by the sword die by the sword

  41. apple will win by fronti · · Score: 1

    if the judge itself is using an iphone or ipad...

    1. Re:apple will win by SeeSp0tRun · · Score: 1

      If that is found to be the case, the judge should then be asked to step down, on bias grounds. The same also goes for if he/she has a Nokia product.
      Hope he/she uses a Droid and Xoom?

      --
      Something witty.
    2. Re:apple will win by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      I think I'm supposed to give you this whoosh. The joke centers around Apple's ability to retain control of devices, and how they would exert this control over the judge's ipad\pod\phone to influence the decision.

  42. I fail to see... by Libertarian001 · · Score: 1

    ...how this is good for consumers, let alone how Useful Arts are being promoted.

  43. Meh. by Berg0r · · Score: 0

    Technically, it'd only be fair, if Samsung won that, but still - it's really childish. "Mommy, my brother broke my toy, break his toy, too!"
    I detest Apple and own a Samsung Galaxy S2 myself, but really, Samsung, man up and don't go there. At least not for now. Let Apple try and sue you another time, then strike back. This crap needs to stop.

    On a completely unrelated note - is there a way, I can patent "The use of charged, sub-atomic particles, for example electrons, for the transportation of information and/or energy"?

    1. Re:Meh. by SleazyRidr · · Score: 2

      One major point of difference is that Samsung has patents on actual pieces of electronics which are required for the phones to work the way they do, which took investment in research and development to achieve. Apple has patents on rectangles with rounded corners.

    2. Re:Meh. by That+Guy+From+Mrktng · · Score: 1

      How... wait, wh.. why people don't understand that rectangles with rounded corners are a cornerstone design element that prevents the user from holding it wrong!? Leave Apple alone! /s

  44. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should check Samsungs component prices. The claim that "Samsung makes more money selling iPhones than Samsung phones" is just wrong. You are either extremely ill informed or just plain lying.

  45. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by bhagwad · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm afraid you misunderstand. Apple is stealing Samsung technology. I suppose you want real INNOVATORS like Samsung to just let thieves like Apple take their IP and blatantly use it in their own products. Don't you know, patents are supposed protect innovators!

    (Tired after hearing that Android "stole" from Apple ad nauseum)

  46. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by sosume · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Funny to see what an absurd profit Apple makes on its customers, compared to the competition, and then have all the fanbois defend that as a unique selling point. The Stockholm syndrome comes to mind...

  47. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Deluded little computer people, don't think you're the first industry to deal with this. Don't think that the same kinds of people thought the same kind of thoughts. Don't think that it ever resolved anything at any other point in history either.

  48. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

    Seems like Samsung should just stop that contract.. and see what happens as Apple has to source flash memory from multiple suppliers to keep up with demand..

    --

    What are we going to do tonight Brain?
  49. So both companies are douchbags now? by cjjjer · · Score: 1

    Does not matter who threw the first punch the fact they are both hurting the consumer in doing so makes them both douchbags in my books.

  50. I don't blame them by C_Kode · · Score: 1

    Apple wasn't interested in any type of licensing agreement. They wanted Samsung's products ban. Why not return the favor? Apple wants to take a scorched earth approach to dealing with competition. By all means, give it to them.

  51. Ah, Lawyers... by afc_wimbledon · · Score: 1

    ...the only force strong enough to hold back the technological singularity!

  52. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Kartu · · Score: 2

    Could you cite your source please?
    Apple has 18% of the global smartphone market share. Samsung is very close to that, with 17%.

  53. The first one. by elashish14 · · Score: 1

    Your anecdote about the sewing machines explains why pretty well.

    Cartels and imaginary property are two huge enemies of progress. What needs to happen is regulation of patent enforcement. If major show-stopper patents (or whatever legal mumbo-jumbo) like being a rectangle can be patented then you shouldn't be granted a monopoly on it. And that's no matter how long that monopoly lasts - technology these days moves forward exponentially faster than it used to.

    --
    I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    1. Re:The first one. by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I go all hippy-spiritual and think maybe patents slowing down progress is actually a good thing. The world is moving so fast, people can't keep up. If we can stave off progress for 14-28 years, that'll give us all time to catch up on the current technology before we have to start learning the new stuff.

      Then of course I snap out of it.

  54. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny to see what an absurd profit Apple makes on its customers, compared to the competition, and then have all the fanbois defend that as a unique selling point. The Stockholm syndrome comes to mind...

    True. That iPad is so absurdly over priced, I don't know why it sells better than the many, cheaper, better alternatives. Oops. Never mind.

  55. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Kartu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Stealing design of a rectangular device with rounded corners is shameless indeed.
    I wonder, why does one need a Fab to steal that...

  56. Conceptual, if not legal difference by fingers1122 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I don't want to sound like an Apple fanboy, but it has to be said that there is at least a conceptual, if not legal, difference between the suits Apple is filling against Samsung and the suits Samsung is filing against Apple. There was no smart phone that looked or acted like the iPhone when it came to market. None. There were indeed phones that provided similar functionalities to what the iPhone eventually offered and made mainstream--but there was no smart phone that was even CLOSE in operation and design to what the iPhone introduced. Now, EVERY smart phone on the market looks and operates like an iPhone. This is not innovation, this is duplication. It's as if other companies--seeing the amazing success of the iPhone-- assumed that Apple's vision of the phone was the future and then they've hopelessly tried to copy it. The iPhone was not a new class of product, like the invention of the automobile was; it was merely Apple's take on what a phone should look and feel like, but other companies have assumed that multitouch OSes, app stores, and accelerometers define what a smart phone is and not just how one company (Apple) interpreted it. This is the difference between bad artists copying and good artists stealing. Sure the iPhone stole heavily from things that were on the market, but it then took those things and made them feel new. So I don't know if there's a legal difference here (probably not), but there is a conceptual difference. Wish Samsung would figure out a way to redefine the smart phone (maybe no touchscreen!) that was unique to its brand, instead of offering what looks to average people like iOS knockoffs.

    1. Re:Conceptual, if not legal difference by X.25 · · Score: 0

      here was no smart phone that looked or acted like the iPhone when it came to market. None. There were indeed phones that provided similar functionalities to what the iPhone eventually offered and made mainstream--but there was no smart phone that was even CLOSE in operation and design to what the iPhone introduced. Now, EVERY smart phone on the market looks and operates like an iPhone. This is not innovation, this is duplication.

      So, because you haven't ever seen another phone before you bought an iPhone, you concluded that no other phones provided similar functionalities to what iPhone eventually offered?

      Sigh.

    2. Re:Conceptual, if not legal difference by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      There was no smart phone that looked... like the iPhone when it came to market.

      I wish this persistent myth would die

      The concpt of a phone with nothing but a large touch screen was already very old before the iPhone came out. Obviously it doesn't look quite like the iphone, but that's 1992 eara manufacturing for you.

      Fast forward a few years and you get the LG Prada which takes IBM's idea ans applies more modern manufactuing techniques. The iPhone is a complete rip-off of the design.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:Conceptual, if not legal difference by fingers1122 · · Score: 1

      Amazing that this was modded up to a 3. I went out of my way to say that there were phones that provided similar functionality. Did you even read my post??

    4. Re:Conceptual, if not legal difference by fingers1122 · · Score: 1

      Was not aware that the LG Prada supported multi-touch gestures, inertial scrolling, visual voicemail, and an intuitive touch UI. Why can't we give credit to a company that really does reimagine products? Yeah, Apple is big and there are other great companies out there, but there's a reason why the iPhone changed the smart-phone game, and there is a reason the iPad changed the tablet game (hey remember slashdot laughing at both of these innovations?). Before the iPad, tablets tried to run PC-style OSes, and they NEVER sold. But I guess you're going to say that there were tablets before the iPad? Yeah, but they were awful and didn't sell for a reason.

    5. Re:Conceptual, if not legal difference by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      You didn't read his post did you? So quick to jump in with an "Apple bash/clueless fanboi" reply.

      Sigh.

    6. Re:Conceptual, if not legal difference by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you arbitrarily define phones preceding iPhone as "similar functionalities", and those following it as "looks and operates like", which is plainly false - the difference between, say, Android and iOS devices is not really any less than between iOS and S60 back in the day. The only major changes are dominance of capacitive touch (not an Apple innovation), and certain specific multitouch gestures (an Apple innovation which, AFAIK, everyone else pays them licensing fees for).

    7. Re:Conceptual, if not legal difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The iPhone was the first phone to properly support multi-touch and they purchased the company that was working on that, they didn't come up with it themselves. I'll leave the debate as to whether they actually invented that or not for some other day. They however were not the first phone with inertial scrolling and visual voicemail by a long shot. Apple actually purchased a license from a patent troll, Judah Klausner, over visual voicemail and at least his patent goes back well before the iPhone. As to whether their interface is intuitive that's highly debatable.

      What evidence do you have that tablets previously didn't sell? Previously their sales were lumped in with laptops and I worked for several companies that had hundreds. People use them still for note taking. While the hand writing recognition isn't perfect its still far faster than typing on a crappy touch keyboard.

      What Apple is good at and deserves credit for is taking other people raw ideas and turning them into polished products. Rarely do they actually invent anything themselves though they seem to be able to convince people they've invented everything they make.

    8. Re:Conceptual, if not legal difference by horza · · Score: 2

      Uh huh. iPhone - 2007. LG Prada - 2006.

      "LG Electronics has claimed the iPhone's design was copied from the LG Prada. Woo-Young Kwak, head of LG Mobile Handset R&D Center, said at a press conference, “We consider that Apple copied the Prada phone after the design was unveiled when it was presented in the iF Design Award and won the prize in September 2006."

      If you look at photos of both, with Prada's tablet like look and large capacitative touch screen, it's pretty clear the iPhone is just a rip-off.

      Phillip.

    9. Re:Conceptual, if not legal difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you fantasize about sucking Steve Jobs' aged dick, is it before or after he's fucked you in the ass?

    10. Re:Conceptual, if not legal difference by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Was not aware that the LG Prada supported multi-touch gestures, inertial scrolling, visual voicemail, and an intuitive touch UI.

      It didn't, but obviously he was refuting your idea that nothing looked like the iphone before but everything looks like the iphone now, which as you can see is completely false.

      Why can't we give credit to a company that really does reimagine products?

      Most people do, they just also acknowledge that it's ok for companies to copy Apple in the same way the Apple copies other companies and accept that statements like This is not innovation, this is duplication. is just rubbish. No-one is going to say Apple doesn't innovate, but to suggest that they are the only ones innovating and that everyone else is just copying them is either ignorant or just plain obtuse. Look at how many features of iOS5 are just copies of features in other phones and look at how the design of the Apple TV is a blatant copy of existing devices.
      On the other hand look at how good their unibody notebooks are and how they are integrating multi-touch with their desktop OS offerings.

      Apple, like all the big tech companies, takes good ideas from others as well as innovating themselves, Steve Jobs has some famous quotes about stealing of good ideas.

    11. Re:Conceptual, if not legal difference by fingers1122 · · Score: 1

      I mostly agree with you.

      The point I was trying to make is that a conceptual difference exists between the amalgamation of a curated selection of technologies in the creation of something that gives new meaning to those individual technologies and is greater than the sum of its parts and blatantly just copying without any new contribution or inspiration. Apple rarely if ever has truly invented a technology--but consumers don't care. What they have done--brilliantly--is figured out how to frame existing technologies in ways that drastically improve them, and make them appear to be inevitable when they weren't before. What consistently has set Apple apart is their aesthetic sensibilities. Good design appears inevitable, almost natural--but it so rarely is. You can try your best to point to what made the iPod, iPhone, or iPad great products, but you'll fail. It's the entire experience of the product, the new gestalt they each created that has made them triumph over their existing rivals--not the individual technologies they comprise. This, like it or not, is artistry and it's not an illusion or something created by marketers. The products are works of passion, and Apple is really one of the very few BIG companies in the world that has consistently demonstrated an ability to have faith in their own vision, which we all should applaud. There is so much poorly designed crap in our world created only to enrich some MBA CEO who has no care outside of his own bank account. Say what you will about Apple, but it's hard to deny their passion and artistry. Here on Slashdot, everyone sees the trees and misses the forest.

      I'm in no way justifying Apple's suits against Samsung or defending Apple against the suits it faces. The law is often black and whit when it comes to copyright law.

    12. Re:Conceptual, if not legal difference by exomondo · · Score: 1

      The point I was trying to make is that a conceptual difference exists between the amalgamation of a curated selection of technologies in the creation of something that gives new meaning to those individual technologies and is greater than the sum of its parts and blatantly just copying without any new contribution or inspiration.

      But the other companies aren't just blatantly copying, that's the point, they are taking what Apple came up with and innovating on top of that, just as Apple did with devices that preceded it like the blackberry. The iphone is just one of the important stages of communication technologies, yes it was a game-changing stage but one that copied the products and ideas that came before it (the pinnacle of which was probably the blackberry) and that is now copying those that have succeeded it (see iOS5). You can't expect to be able to take ideas from others but not allow others to take ideas from you, all companies do it, including Apple. They've even done one of the most blatant copies of a design I've seen (AppleTV), yet they then sue Samsung for copying their design elements.

      Here on Slashdot, everyone sees the trees and misses the forest.

      No, a vocal minority sees the lawsuits and the anti-competitive behavior and the impact this has on the market, just as they do with Microsoft. Changing the market is great, but not if you're going to then go out and sue all of your competitors.

  57. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Fjandr · · Score: 1

    So what you're saying here is that, despite being a larger company, Apple is less diverse and requires nearly 3x the revenue of Samsung per year to make less net profit.

    Samsung, on the other hand, makes basic technologies and innovations that allow companies like Apple to exist in the first place.

    Gotcha.

  58. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

    You may wish to learn how to read.

  59. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Better read that chart again dude, seems you got some of those numbers mixed up.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  60. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Fjandr · · Score: 0

    The most technologically superior device doesn't win in the US. The first decent device in an industry usually does (or the first decent device marketed at the right time). Sometimes those two things coincide. Sometimes they don't. It's usually easier to point out where they don't, though.

    There are very few market leaders that dominate a market who don't fit that profile.

    Whether Apple is "better" is irrelevant.

  61. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by ScentCone · · Score: 3

    Funny to see what an absurd profit Apple makes

    You're right. Apple shouldn't be allowed to make any profit.

    Or do you think that they should be able to, but you think that the actual amount of profit they should be able to earn should be decided by someone else, like you?

    The Stockholm syndrome comes to mind...

    What should we call the syndrome that makes whiny haters trot out boring, over-used, poorly-applied mems like that, phrased in a way to make it sound like they're really clever and just thought it up? Really? You were betting your see-how-cool-I-am comment on the hopes that people hadn't already seen that misplaced bit of snarkiness a thousand times already? Let me guess, you also use "M$" when referring to Microsoft, because that is just so damn inventive on your part, right?

    Anyway, back to profit. Please mention the correct profit number that Apple should make so that you won't hate them. A precise number would be ideal, thanks.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  62. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by cHiphead · · Score: 1

    Always bet on BLACK.

    --

    This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  63. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not HDD anymore. They sold that off last year, remember?

  64. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    absurd how? Stockholm syndrome how?

    Apple is nowhere near as diverse as Samsung. Apple lives in primarily the low volume/high margin markets of higher end and premium products, Samsung in involved in many high volume / low margin markets (hard drives, lower end smartphones, optical media, etc) it stands to reason that a company focusing on the higher tiers of the markets they're involved in has higher margins than one who isn't or isn't strictly such.

    It also stands to reason that a much, much larger company has more expenses than a much, much smaller one. Paying those 225,400 employees that Apple doesn't need to worry about for example, is a huge cost Samsung has that Apple does not. Samsung is involved in aviation, shipbuilding and chemicals, all three of which involve expensive equipment and factories that Apple doesn't need to care about, nor perhaps more importantly, pay for. And beyond that, it stand to reason that someone selling electronic components is making thiner margins than someone assembling those components into a finished product.

    There's this strange misconception that margins are created only by jacking up the price and not by lowering costs, and the latter is exactly what GP's numbers suggests, Apple has fewer expenses that Samsung, which should be obvious to anyone who realize just how huge and diverse Samsung is vis-a-vis how comparatively minuscule and narrow-focused Apple is. Not to say that Apple doesn't pad their margins - everyone does - but again, Apple focuses on the higher end, premium tiers of their markets, where people are willing to pay a premium for something they want, provided Apple is providing it.

    Buy hey, why let economics get in the way of hatred, right?

  65. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Fjandr · · Score: 1

    Quite right. I confused the headers. That's what I get for posting while half asleep.

  66. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also
    Home Appliances
    Television Sets

  67. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Fjandr · · Score: 1

    It did strike me as a little odd that Apple's numbers for revenues were so much higher given the differentials in the classes of products the two makes, but apparently not odd enough for me to re-check that I read it correctly.

  68. Samsung is hiring! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd love to see more applicants from the /. crowd.

    My team supports Samsung R&D USA and our reqs are at:
    http://careers.us.samsung.com/sisa

    Best,

    Charles

    __

    Message sent by:

    Charles Jo
    Recruiter, Samsung
    408.544.5687office | 408.668.4226 sms
    charles.jo@sisa.samsung.com
    http://careers.us.samsung.com/sisa

    Samsung R&D Center | 75 W. Plumeria Drive | San Jose, CA 95134
    http://www.sisa.samsung.com | http://www.sisa.samsung.com/ux

  69. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More fanboi fantasies. Apple won't be destroyed or even dented over this. Get real.
     
    Or are you one of those same lemmings that, 10 years ago, was chanting that every flub in MS was another nail in the coffin and they'd topple over and Linux would spread like wildfire any day now?
     
    If you it wasn't for you guys being so boring you might actually be worth a laugh.

  70. You go, Samsung by fnj · · Score: 1

    You go, Samsung.

  71. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by rwa2 · · Score: 1

    Hey, as long as this doesn't end up affecting the cost of Samsung LCDs / RAM / HDDs, I'm actually totally OK with watching this patent war play out from the sidelines. /grabs popcorn

  72. Can't wait.... by danizmax · · Score: 1

    Can't wait.... the bitches deserve it....

  73. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by coop0030 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And yet Apple's competitors are having a difficult time matching the price of the iPad, and the Macbook Air (with comparable quality). Maybe they're just a much more efficient company? Maybe it's a better run business to generate higher profits than their competitors? Nah, has to be 'fanbois' giving away their money...

  74. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eheh... you reminded me of a funny thing: I think it's so amusing to see Apple fanbois rejoice over the fact that "Apple is the most profitablest company evers", while failing to notice that it is simply a reflection of the fact that Apple just sells overpriced stuff ;) </troll>

    But, yeah... regardless of all that, Apple really should be careful about whose toes they are stepping: having Apple razed over some stupid patents does no good to anyone (even non-Apple users). Remember kids: competition is a GOOD thing (at least for the consumer).

  75. Competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're doing it wrong.

  76. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    Did I say Apple was making ALL of the profit? I just said they have the lion's share of it.

    If you're not familiar with that phrase - it means Apple is getting the majority of the profit out of the deal. Samsung makes a bit of profit, but not nearly as much as their handset business has been making.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  77. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by MimeticLie · · Score: 2

    On the other hand, have you looked at MacBook prices ever? A bare-bones 13in (i5, 4GB RAM, no discrete graphics) costs more than a loaded 17in laptop (i7, 8GB RAM, 540M, 1080p screen, Bluray drive, more hard-disk space) from other manufacturers. I've used MacBooks. Their build quality is good, but not that good.

  78. In My Books.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Samsung started the sh*t throwing contest when: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-29/samsung-files-itc-patent-complaint-against-apple.html and obviously the thing backfired, dont see it ending well for them this time again.

    1. Re:In My Books.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't even read the article you linked to, did you?

      "The dispute began in April when Cupertino, California-based Apple claimed in a U.S. lawsuit that Samsung’s Galaxy phone and tablet computers “slavishly” copy the iPhone and iPad. "

    2. Re:In My Books.... by h4z3 · · Score: 1

      Not talking about the lawsuits, but the blocking. Samsung set the bar.

  79. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fine. 40% and no more, asshole.

  80. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

    An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

    I think the idea is that blind people are more likely to buy "no more eye for an eye" laws. The entire industry is suffering due to patents, so it's a good thing that the biggest players, who have the most power to change things, start experiencing a larger portion of that suffering.

    Another good thing about what's happening, is that it's high-profile. Thousands of people can be blinded and nobody cares, but should it happen to even one single celebrity, suddenly it's important. Joe Schmoe doesn't give a fuck that it's illegal for you to encode or decode h264 without permission, but he cares that he's not allowed to buy an iPad.

    You don't have to celebrate the injustice, but yes, if it's going to happen anyway, celebrate the venue in which it's happening. It's not a good thing, but it's an improvement.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  81. It didn't work for Nokia by Quila · · Score: 1

    First, Apple never denied it owed Nokia RAND royalties from the beginning. The problem was that Nokia singled-out Apple for higher rates, violating the "ND" part of "RAND."

    Apple settled for what Apple was supposed to pay in the first place if Nokia had honored the RAND terms. The cash payment to Nokia was back RAND royalties.

    It was a complete win for Apple and a loss for Nokia, which had to pay all those lawyers and still only got the same RAND rate Apple was already prepared to pay before the suit.

    1. Re:It didn't work for Nokia by chrb · · Score: 1

      Apple settled for what Apple was supposed to pay in the first place if Nokia had honored the RAND terms. The cash payment to Nokia was back RAND royalties.

      The terms of the settlement were not disclosed. There is no way you can know what Apple was supposed to pay, or what it did pay, or what it was actually paying for.

      It was a complete win for Apple and a loss for Nokia, which had to pay all those lawyers and still only got the same RAND rate Apple was already prepared to pay before the suit.

      You are completely ignoring the fact that the settlement also included patent cross-licensing. And since the settlement terms are confidential, we have no idea whether they included non-RAND patents on Nokia's side, or which patents Apple agreed to cross-license.

      Engadget had a patent lawyer write on the Nokia/Apple case in 2009. It isn't as simple as you suggest. Because of patent cross-licensing, and the fact that there is no independent examination of potential RAND patents during the standardisation process, the result is that a) nobody really knows which patents are (or should be) considered RAND, and b) there is no "fixed price" for licensing RAND patents. "In reality FRAND is nebulous and undefined, with almost no specific rules for determining what a 'fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory' license actually is." Also, note that Nokia actually wanted to settle for cash - Nokia requested that the court determine a "fair" price: "Nokia isn't even really asking for money damages beyond interest on past due royalties, it just wants a fair license rate for its patents." The point of the dispute was that Apple's idea of "fair" was different to that of Nokia's. Because there is no list of the actual RAND patents, and there is no cash valuation of the patents on either side, it is possible for two sets of experts to come up with two completely different sets of necessary patents and valuations.

  82. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by scot4875 · · Score: 1

    Good job missing the entire point.

    --Jeremy

    --
    Jesus was a liberal
  83. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you really that stupid? You think you, as a random commenter on the internet, have managed to outsmart the entire apple legal and executive team? What kind of idiotic arrogance is this? They are not stupid people and would not be pressing a suit unless they believe they can win, and win permanently.

    Your "destroy apple" commentary shows your obvious bias.

  84. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Xeranar · · Score: 1

    Why do people cite this as a positive? They're moving far less units per quarter than the others, if we're to believe the current North American sales rate Apple has such a huge markup that it's possibly double or triple the highest android on the market. In other words: Apple is ripping off customers. Perceived value or not iOS just isn't worth on a statistical level 300% more than Android. The whole reason Apple is even suing Samsung is over design because that is essentially what Apple sells. They are the Coach of the tech world, a far better purse could be had for far less but it is an issue of style over substance. I'm not a detractor of Apple either, I like the Mac OS X interface and wouldn't be against owning an iMac or a MacBook, I just can't justify paying such a HUGE premium on something that can't run half of the applications I want. I'm not even a serious power user in the IT field, I'm a professor. My department has some Mac users and some PC and I prefer my PC simply because it can see the mail server, access blackboard, access our proprietary student accounts system and give me maximum access.

  85. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except that, since Apple won their injunction, they're presumably in the right about the design-copying issue? So Samsung are the ones being wining bitches.

  86. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    crying that they are the underdog while suing all competition out of the market.

    You have described Samsung perfectly. http://www.google.com/search?q=samsung+sues+-apple

  87. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by jo_ham · · Score: 1

    They already do. Samsung is not the only memory supplier to Apple, just one of several. Killing that deal would hurt Samsung more than it would inconvenience Apple, which is why Samsung have not done it already.

  88. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by increment1 · · Score: 1

    In theory, in a mature, competitive industry, there should be very very small profit margins. Innovation and barriers to entry, however, can protect profit margins; as can marketing and mind share.

    Apple made the first really successful multimedia smart phone, and has been reaping huge profits due to their innovation in this field (even if you think "innovation" here only means bringing everything together in a shiny package). Unfortunately for Apple, the competition is catching up (or has caught up and surpassed, depending on who you ask). This means it will be much more difficult for Apple to maintain their profit margins.

    The patent lawsuits by Apple against Samsung are an attempt to maintain a barrier to entry since Samsung's products have caught up functionally with Apple's. How would it look for Apple if the iPhone5 is behind (or merely on par) to the Galaxy SII? They may be able to get away with their margins for one more iteration, but their mind share will start to falter as soon as their products are not unambiguously superior (which they have mostly been in the smart phone market up until now).

    In fairness to Apple, from their perspective, they have been buying parts from Samsung who then goes ahead and makes a very similar phone on the side. It is hard to compete with your supplier, and raises trust issues since they know what you are ordering etc. Fortunately, Samsung has enough money to defend themselves from these lawsuits, and clearly the desire to launch a large scale counter offensive.

    And no, I am not an Apple fanboi, my phone is actually an SII (which is a great phone, imho).

  89. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by ScentCone · · Score: 2

    Good job missing the entire point.

    Nah, I know exactly what he's saying - directly and indirectly. He comes right out and tells us that Apple's profits are absurd and that (by implication) hostage-like people who don't know their own minds on the subject are defending them. He dissaproves of Apple's earnings, and he's derisively complaining about the people who buy things from Apple. It's not exactly complicated.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  90. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by jo_ham · · Score: 1

    No, they really don't. Not even close.

  91. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    40% and no more

    Can I dictate how much you're allowed to make? Please?

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  92. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by gmon750 · · Score: 1

    They are simply a bunch of whining crybabies that got left out of the AAPL party. Pity them... oh wait... never mind.

  93. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's all say this together: Vertical Integration.

  94. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by gmon750 · · Score: 1

    The thinner a laptop gets, the more complicated it gets to keep everything cool and compact. That engineering costs serious money and if not done right, the manufacturer will end up getting a huge boatload of returns.

    There are heat issues, durability issues, etc.

    Apple's build quality is not just good, it's the best, and Apple has the highest customer service ratings than all the other players.

  95. Samsung boo.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Samsung's handsets are terrible. If they made quality harware I would feel bad for them. However, despite being larger than Apple, the fact remains that Apple leads the market in units sold, for all devices from the ipod to the ipad to the iphone.

    No matter what people try Apple will trounce the competition because
    1. tight integration of hardware and software
    2. fantastic developer ecosystem
    3. obsessed mac fans
    4. great, secure revenue stream from integration of services, itunes/apple store etc..

    running android on a Samsung is like having a V8 engine in Kia... it might work but it will have terrible gas mileage and it will eventually break and run slow from a mismatch of components...

    1. Re:Samsung boo.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      running android on a Samsung is like having a V8 engine in Kia... it might work but it will have terrible gas mileage

      Can't say gas mileage has ever been considered a requirement for a smartphone.

  96. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by NimbleSquirrel · · Score: 1

    But to Apple, the iPhone5 represets a massive part of their total product line. If the iPhone5 were to be blocked, it would be a huge financial hit for them and would deeply affect their share price. The fact that Apple does not pay dividends on their shares means that their share price is somewhat more volatile than shares in other companies (who do pay dividends).

    By contrast, Samsung's product lineup is massive, and the Galaxy line (S, S2, Tabs) only represent a small part. If they are blocked, it would still be a financial hit, but not as massive as Apple's would be.

  97. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by horza · · Score: 1

    Samsung has market cap of $130bn and Apple of $380bn, but the latter also has $76.4bn cash reserves. Apple may make flash looking mediocre products but they know how to squeeze their clients for high margins.

    Phillip.

  98. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by cyfer2000 · · Score: 1

    I have been wondering for some time, why Diane Sawyer of ABC world news never asked Apple to make CPU their iphones and iPads in the great US of A?

    --
    There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
  99. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to mention that is probably breaching the terms of the contract they have to supply the components. Samsung may have no choice to renew the contract when it expires.

  100. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What some people call an extraordinary profit margin, some of us (those who haven't had their brains sucked out of their heads by Apple marketing brain leaches) call it price gouging.

  101. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by sjames · · Score: 2

    Apple has kicked a tiger square in the balls and is about to learn why that's not a smart play.

    So, who's up for applesauce?

  102. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

    Samsung is acting like a child. They blatantly ripped of Apple's designs and now are trying to get back at the mean old parent for taking away their toys. Remember this is a company that colluded with LCD manufacturers to price-fix LCDs and was busted by the DOJ for $3 billion back in 2007. It's unlikely Samsung will stop Apple with some obscure hardware patents.

  103. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by shellbeach · · Score: 2

    Or cutting off your nose to spite your face is fair play bitch. Samsung makes more money selling iPhones than Samsung phones

    Citation? Samsung is making a huge profit right now through their smartphone sales, whilst their profits from most other components is falling. In Q2 of this year, Samsung sold way more phones than Apple. Phone sales, right now, are top dollar for Samsung.

    And if Apple's sales of an iPhone5 gets blocked, what do think will happen to Samsung's sales? Do you think they might just happen to rise even further?

  104. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Threni · · Score: 1

    What a bizarre response. If you knew what a margin was, you'd know I have no need to quote any source.

    Oh, and there's no need to point out how similar 17% and 18% are. We know.

  105. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Jibekn · · Score: 1

    Actually I think all corporations should not be allowed to make profit, salaries should be capped as well. This planet would be a much better place to live, to bad its a pipe dream.

  106. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by That+Guy+From+Mrktng · · Score: 1

    You answered your own question, you're a professor, use the PC to do real and important stuff when it's needed, you're not hip enough == not Apple's target market, and thats why you don't see any added value in it.

  107. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by That+Guy+From+Mrktng · · Score: 1

    LG Prada 2006

    Rectangle: check
    Rectangle with rounded corners: check
    rectangle with rounded corners and capacitative touchscreen: check

  108. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a bizarre response. If you knew what a margin was, you'd know I have no need to quote any source.

    It appears you don't know what it means to quote a source. If I reversed your previous assertion it does not simply become fact, it needs to be based on something, that something is the 'source' which you would identify by 'quoting' it, otherwise your statement has no more credibility than mine. It's a pretty fundamental aspect of making an argument that for some reason you appear intellectually incapable of comprehending.

  109. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can see why you would dump a supplier that steals your designs.

    Oh right, because only apple is allowed to steal ideas.

  110. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  111. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except that was only one overpowered judge (in other courts it didn't work and injunction got soon downsized from "all Europe" to "Germany" quickly), tampered evidence and no chance given to Samsung to say anything in defence before issuing the order.

    Yeah, that incident really shows Apple in positive light.

  112. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by mgblst · · Score: 1

    A growing profit can be much smaller than a shrinking profit, you don't need to be a mathematician to understand that.

  113. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by mgblst · · Score: 0

    Sure, and a 13 inch Thinkpad or Vaio costs twice as much as a 17 inch piece of shit as well.

    A Steak costs 4x as much as a mcdonald hamburger.

    And a BMW costs 4x as much as a shitty Ford.

    Also, this comment is worth 4x as much as your shitty comment.

  114. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple has $75 billion, Samsung $300 billion. You do the math.

  115. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Xeranar · · Score: 1

    Damn you for making a valid point. Damn you! I just find it frustrating when people get into these arguments and ignore the reality. I want Ford to make a fortune because they are my preferred car company and I like Coke over Pepsi. But do I want to pay a 300% markup on either of their products so they can stick it to their opposites? Not particularly. If anything I would rather them simply sell more at a margin so that both more people gain access and support my purely esoteric side.

    Fanboys are Fanboys. But there has to be a logical end to our biased desires.

  116. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Kartu · · Score: 1

    Uhm, what?
    Having 2/3d of the smartphone profits with 18% market share is rather remarkable.
    That's why I'd prefer to know what is the source of that info and when exactly did that happen.

  117. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Threni · · Score: 1

    But how would that information be in any way relevant to a discussion about how much profit Samsung makes from selling this or that product?

  118. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by jo_ham · · Score: 1

    Apple's market cap: $382 billion

    Samsung's cash: $300 billion.

    You do the maths.

  119. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Kartu · · Score: 1

    According to the poster above, we have two companies with roughly the same market share, and rather close prices (!!!) yet one of them has 2/3rd of the market profit. If that doesn't make you wonder, you may wish to learn how to think.

  120. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Kartu · · Score: 1

    Apple's marked share shrank from 96% last year to 74% this year. (and that without major players like Samsung or Sony entering the market)
    And it is expected to go down to 44% by 2015.

  121. Looks good on Apple by inHaliburton · · Score: 1

    Looks good on Apple. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of bozos.

  122. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Threni · · Score: 1

    See my previous reply to your other comment. You keep going on about "2/3rd of the market profit". All completely irrelevant to any discussion about mark-ups or margins. Please deal with what's actually being discussed here, or give up.

  123. It's the free market in action by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

    That's what happens when a company charges monopoly rents. It encourages other companies to enter the market and price sanity is restored. Apple is addicted to those monopoly rents and is fighting tooth and nail to keep the competition out. The have the first mover advantage, but their free ride is almost over. Unless they are able to move the goalposts, they had better get used to other companies taking a share.

  124. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by MimeticLie · · Score: 1

    Yes, Chinese crap is much better than other Chinese crap. Oh, wait.

  125. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't wait for the day my children look at me and say "LOL, there was a computer company named after a fruit and they called their users stupid and prevented them from doing whatever they wanted with their own stuff?! Then they took on several companies in a fight one of them alone was already twice its size! They don't sound very creative or smart. That must be why they didn't make it."

  126. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IOW everything Apple does gets more news reports than Samsung - including Suits. Which is the reason why Samsung copies Apple. Heck "Apple sues Samsung" gets over 7 times as many hits as "Samsung sues Apple". Nobody but Slashdotters cares about Samsung.

  127. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or cutting off your nose to spite your face is fair play bitch. Samsung makes more money selling iPhones than Samsung phones

    Citation? Samsung is making a huge profit right now through their smartphone sales, whilst their profits from most other components is falling. In Q2 of this year, Samsung sold way more phones than Apple. Phone sales, right now, are top dollar for Samsung.

    And if Apple's sales of an iPhone5 gets blocked, what do think will happen to Samsung's sales? Do you think they might just happen to rise even further?

    So lets see: Samsung still makes more profits from components than from smartphones, they sell more phones than Apple sells smartphones (but less smartphones - oops). And all these facts are in your sources.

  128. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

    If by "not matching the price" you mean "offering a superior product for the same price", then you'd be right.

    TBH I don't think Samsung are worried about being cheaper than whatever Apple has. They make products good enough to compete on their own merits. Other manufacturers have targeted the lower end.
    Samsung are beating Apple by making superior products, and Apple can't accept it that they can't keep up. For a company who relied on premium revenues by selling the luxury product lines and maintaining this image it's a problem when somebody comes along and starts making clearly better products.

  129. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by That+Guy+From+Mrktng · · Score: 1

    Working in marketing for some time, even if I'm an advertising dude (read liberal arts kind of weasel) shields you against the marketing poison. That said, I was a ragging Mac fan by the time Jobs returned but I moved on when they started to control freak everything.

  130. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Jibekn · · Score: 1

    Citation? Because I've had nothing but problems with Apple products, Product support and their customer service in general.

    'Best' is also so subjective its not even funny.

    Show me the Apple laptop I can run over with a 1/2 Ton truck and still work flawlessly.
    Show me the Apple laptop with an 18 hour batter life.
    Show me the Apple laptop I can run Crysis 2 on with absolutely maxed settings.
    Show me the Apple laptop that cost 499.99

    There really is nothing Apple does 'Best' with its laptop lines. They're not the cheapest, fastest, most powerful, most energy efficient, lightest or thinnest. What exactly are they the best at?

  131. Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, you develop/invent something, I'll steal it and make money off it. Hell, I'll even tell them it was my idea for ya! Cool? Bet you you would change your little tune then. You bet cha!