Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tim Cook Never Wanted To Sue Samsung

Posted by Soulskill on from the can't-we-all-just-get-along dept.

colinneagle writes "While Steve Jobs' ire in regards to Android is well known, a recent report from Reuters relays that current Apple CEO Tim Cook never wanted to sue Samsung in the first place. 'Tim Cook, Jobs' successor as Apple chief executive, was opposed to suing Samsung in the first place, according to people with knowledge of the matter, largely because of that company's critical role as a supplier of components for the iPhone and the iPad. Apple bought some $8 billion worth of parts from Samsung last year, analysts estimate.' In various earnings conference calls, Tim Cook has repeated that he hates litigation, but has still toed the party line by exclaiming that Apple welcomes innovators but doesn't like when other companies rip off their intellectual property."

16 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. Unable to control your company, or complicit. by Kenja · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry, this excuse just doesn't fly with me. If the company he's supposed to be in charge of is doing things like suing competitors without his permission or knowledge, then he's a failure as a CEO.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. Even if the lawsuit went ahead due to momentum, as leader in charge of the company, wouldn't you be willing to work to end the lawsuit through settlements and get back to business? Why would you continue to press ahead, or even allow it to continue?

      This is just a BS blurb for public relations.

    2. Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. by JonathanF · · Score: 4, Informative

      These lawsuits were started before Cook was CEO -- the point is that he basically inherited lawsuits that Jobs started.

      And while it's tempting to follow up with "he should just drop all the lawsuits," it's not that easy -- aside from spooking the public and investors, an exit from legal action wouldn't guarantee that others would do the same. Samsung has at least made some grandstanding that it will never, ever settle. That could just be talk, but Samsung isn't exactly known for its humility or compassion toward competitors.

    3. Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. by the_B0fh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you people ever get out of the basement? In internal discussions, Steve Jobs said sue. Tim Cook said no. Steve Jobs overruled, and Apple sued.

      Why didn't Tim Cook want to sue? For fear of damaging supplier relationship with Samsung. Not because he thought Samsung didn't copy them.

      Keep that in mind. *THE LAWSUIT ALREADY HAPPENED.*

      Steve Jobs died. Tim Cook is now CEO.

      He has to decide - continue to sue, or kill the lawsuit. *THE LAWSUIT IS ALREADY ONGOING*.

      To kill the lawsuit means:
      1) Admit Apple was wrong.
      2) Gives more power to Samsung and others to copy Apple's look and feel.
      3) Supplier relationship with Samsung is still screwed
      4) Future negotiations with Samsung will be with a weaker hand.

      Which part of that equates to him not knowing Apple is suing Samsung?

      I cannot even comprehend how the hell you came by the idea that Tim Cook is not aware of any lawsuits (if nothing else, it's headlines all over the place).

    4. Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. by RazorSharp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sorry, this excuse just doesn't fly with me. If the company he's supposed to be in charge of is doing things like suing competitors without his permission or knowledge, then he's a failure as a CEO.

      Jobs was still alive when the litigation started. . . if you had even read the first paragraph of the article you would know that (or if you had better reading comprehension skills, as your UID indicates you had a /. account when the lawsuit started and it was covered almost daily here for months).

      Cook may not have agreed with initiating the lawsuit, but once it was started it's likely he saw going through with it as the best strategic option. The damage had already been done, the best he could hope for was to win. Kind of like the Iraq war. It was a stupid idea, but once we toppled their government there was no turning back.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    5. Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Samsung is well known for cross-licensing intellectual property, and it's pragmatic attitude towards litigation. Apple not so much. Apple is, has been, and always will be the problem.

    6. Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. by gnasher719 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep. Judge people by their actions not their words.

      Sometimes that happens. Sometimes it doesn't. As a result, Samsung is supposed to pay $1bn for violating Apple's patents, but a huge leak of hydrofluoric acid at Samsung's plant that killed one worker, injured four and according to police reports may have affected thousands, got them a one thousand dollar fine.

      http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2244389/police-contradict-samsungs-acid-discharge-claims

    7. Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And while it's tempting to follow up with "he should just drop all the lawsuits," it's not that easy -- aside from spooking the public and investors, an exit from legal action wouldn't guarantee that others would do the same.

      Oh, I don't personally believe that it is ever too late to end an armed conflict by peaceful measures. Cook could take the lead and arrange a closed doors settlement that would be acceptable to both parties. Apple could come out still with a "don't even think about messing with us" look. Samsung could partially maintain their innocence, although with an extremely contrite demur and admission they won't get into such a mess again.

      When the conflict gets to litigation, everyone except the lawyers lose.

      It doesn't take much courage to enter a conflict. It takes much character and leadership to end one peacefully.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    8. Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The usual solution is to agree an "out of court settlement" where neither party admits fault.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. Money where your mouth is by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Apple welcomes innovators but doesn't like when other companies rip off their intellectual property"

    Okay, put your money where your mouth is. Remove the notification shade from iOS. You ripped it off wholesale from Android.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:Money where your mouth is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Apple welcomes innovators but doesn't like when other companies rip off their intellectual property"

      Okay, put your money where your mouth is. Remove the notification shade from iOS. You ripped it off wholesale from Android.

      No, no, you don't iUnderstand it. They innovated that from Android.

    2. Re:Money where your mouth is by jbolden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The educated people here on slashdot know that smart phones were around for more than a decade before the first iPhone, but if you ask the average man-on-the-street you'll find they think the first smart phone was an iPhone.

      The 2007 rollout for the iPhone includes a rather lengthy comparison to other smartphones. So if this is true, it certainly isn't the result of Steve Jobs. Job's claimed that Apple invented the first multitouch smartphone using an animated interface. He never claimed to have invented the smartphone.

      there can be no greater irony than having the words "OS" in "OSX" when it's just a modified version of FreeBSD and unrelated to the previous versions of their OS line. If Apple had any intellectual honesty they would have called is MacBSD or something similar.

      FreeBSD started in 1993. The first version of NeXTStep shipped in 1988. I think both projects developed independently from Berkley. But if you want to assert copying at the core NeXTStep came first. As for the regents of California, boot an OSX machine in verbose mode.

  3. Allow me to join in here by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just gonna repeat what everyone else is saying. This is ridiculous.

    Apple is getting a lot of negative press on their current legal activities. Their pattents are being eroded. Details of their cases are being foiled in courts around the globe. That billion-dollar judgement will not stand and it is simply unimaginable that the jury verdict will stand in light of the jury misconduct which definitely happened. The numerous cases brought and initially won using doctored/edited visuals for evidence is simply dirty.

    And the idea that the CEO didn't want to do this? Explain to me what a CEO does again?

    Apple is losing a lot more than cases and patent claims. They are losing their customers. I know, people will cite last years figures and reports to claim they are a reflection of today's and tomorrow's popularity figures. I just don't see it. Everywhere I look, the use of iPhone is decreasing. That's not to say people using Android are excited fans or anything. They're not. The excitement over touchscreen smartphones and fart-apps is over. Now it's about practical matters which matter to people; Cost, Apps, Usability, Restrictions and other considerations.

    Brand recognition is important to consumers for some reason. Apple's brand is being diminished. It is having an affect.

    1. Re:Allow me to join in here by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think he means, losing market share. And they're bleeding market share like a stuck pig.

  4. Re:I'm not the bad guy here by gnasher719 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can I just say that repeating the nonsense of "patenting shit like rounded corners" marks you as either a troll or an imbecile.

    Apple didn't patent rounded corners. Apple has a _design patent_ for a design consisting of many items, one of them rounded corners. To infringe on this _design patent_, you have to copy the complete design, every single item listed in the design patent. You can have as many rounded corners as you like. As long as your design is in some way different from Apple's design patent.

    Here's for your enjoyment an example of Samsung patenting rounded corners:

    http://www.patentbolt.com/2012/12/samsung-wins-a-design-patent-for-one-of-their-galaxy-phones.html

  5. Would you like me to explain :) by tuppe666 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oct 2011 - Dec 2011, sold 37 mil iphones.
    Oct 2012 - Dec 2012, sold 48 mil iphones.

    http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130214005415/en/Android-iOS-Combinid

    Compared to Androids

    Oct 2011 - Dec 2011, sold 85 mil smartphones.
    Oct 2012 - Dec 2012, sold 160 mil smartphones.

    Thats ignoring Apple are now selling more lower marking 4* Phones Apples market share.

    From the statement "iOS posted yet another quarter and year of double-digit growth with strong demand for the iPhone. But what also stands out is how iOS's year-over-year growth has slowed compared to the overall market." your right its better than losing all there customers...not good though.