A quick google, yielded that Ebay allows cancellation of gift certificates for up to 60 days after issuance and has been issuing these gift certificates prior to 2008.
"Retina Display" is not a type of display, it is a marketing term for a dense pixel display. While LG has made dense pixel display's for the iPhone, they do not appear on the iPad3, marketed under the name "Retina Display." I responded to a claim that Apple had somehow locked up the supply of "Retina Displays," which seems to me to be demonstrably false.
Apple paid them less than $8 billion in total revenue last year (less than $6 billion by some accounts). This was in their low margin components business as well. Samsung Electronics division made more than $140 billion in revenue and more than 70% of their profits came from their own phones and tablets. The takeaway here is that Apple accounts for less than 6% of Samsung's Electronics revenue and less than that of their profits.
Samsung Mobile Display is still a integral part of Samsung. It is 100% owned by Samsung Electronics and Samsung SDI. Samsung uses a complex circular ownership structure so the company at the top of the pyramid, Samsung Everland, can retain control of the entire company despite only owning a small piece. Either directly, or through Samsung Everland, Lee Gun Hee owns the majority stake in Samsung Life (and other subsidiaries), which in turn own the majority stake in Samsung Electronics (with other Samsung companies owning pieces as well). The company is firmly in the control of Lee Gun Hee and this family. I suggest you read up on the "jaebol" system in order to understand Samsung better. That is not to say that Samsung Mobile Display (or its parent Samsung Electronics) cannot push their own direction, but ultimately all these pieces must answer to same people.
I agree with your argument about sunk costs, but I can't seem to find anything to back up the claim that Samsung receives "massive subsidies" from Apple. In addition, because Samsung is not using the same technology in Apple's displays, it weakens the argument that Apple's volumes drastically decrease Samsung's costs in their own products.
Sometimes I feel like a Samsung shill on this site (I am not and I have many less than cordial things to say about them and the "jaebol" system in general), but it's done exclusively to balance out the over the top Apple rhetoric. I would like to add that I think Apple selecting Samsung screens paints Apple in a positive light. Despite their many flaws, the fact that Apple is willing to buy perhaps its most important component from a company they are essential at war with all over the planet, speaks volumes about their priorities. Constructing a product with the best components is more important to Apple than fighting Android. I do wish I had more positive things to say about Apple because I used to root for them in the old days. I am sad to see the company they have become.
Samsung and LG are fierce competitors, but LG is only about a fifth the size of Samsung in terms of revenue and LG actually lost money last year, compared to the more than $20 billion in profits for Samsung. Samsung is in a better position here, but the tech world can be fickle, so who knows.
Apple only details specs, they do not design displays. The specs for the displays (size, pixel density, contrast, etc.) are sent to various manufacturers who design a display to meet the specs and submit examples to Apple. Apple then chooses displays that meet their targets and places orders. For the "retina display", only one company could originally meet all the requirements set by Apple, Samsung. Since then Sharp has also met their specs and will make some displays. LG is still trying to meets Apple's quality requirements. The result of this is that the vast majority of the "retina displays" were made by Samsung.
Nearly all the current retina displays are made by Samsung (with a small percentage made by Sharp). Do you really believe that Samsung (which shipped nearly 25% more smartphones than Apple last quarter) could not simply switch to the display they sell to Apple if they so chose? Samsung has chosen to go with their AMOLED displays because they offer more contrast and lower power consumption than the "retina display." AMOLED displays currently can not be produced at the pixel density desired by Apple, however, so Samsung is using more conventional technology on the display they sell to Apple.
I would consider the Apple insider a pro-Apple publication and they claim that LG is not making displays for Apple at this time because they haven't been able to meet Apple's quality standards. The only higher density display that has been proven (because someone actually took the device apart) is Samsung (link attached).
This is, of course, missing the point. Samsung is one of the 20 largest companies in the world (by revenue). Apple's business represents less than 1% of Samsung's profits. Samsung's most profitable business right now is the same as Apple's, phones and tablets. Samsung just overtook Nokia to become the world's largest phone maker and they shipped almost 25% more smartphones than Apple last quarter. Whether or not Apple continues to do business with Samsung will make little difference.
Interesting, where exactly will Apple go? Apple put out the requirements for the iPad3 ("retina") display. Only one company in the world was able to meet their quality requirements, Samsung. Why do you think that all the first run of iPad3's will have Samsung displays?
Apple is still doing business with Samsung because it doesn't have a choice, not because it wants to. Samsung is still doing business with Apple because they are making money.
We can agree on one thing: your evidence is circumstantial. Societies have undergone many changes since the 1500's. You have only demonstrated that patents do not completely eliminate innovation (you have not yet offered any evidence that patents do not stifle innovation). I find it curious that the rise in innovation coincides with the Enlightenment, which ushered in many changes to society, in addition to patents. It begs the question, given all the other changes, would innovation have happened at the same rate without patent law? It is, of course, impossible to answer. My gut feeling here is the same as you, but I feel your arguments go beyond the evidence itself.
As for modern software, are you seriously arguing that software patents are the reason (or even an important factor) for the increase in software innovation over the last 40 years? I suspect that a much stronger case could be made for advances in hardware and the diffusion of software knowledge outside of the patent system. I think a stronger case could even be made that the relative dearth of software patents prior to the 1990's, made the current growth possible.
The greater concern is not that innovation would have progressed further without patents. The concern is that software patents, which are a very recent phenomena, have reached a critical mass to actually hinder innovation moving forward. Only hindsight will offer any real evidence into the merits of this concern, but anecdotal evidence abounds.
Wow, where should I begin; false dilemma, straw man, coincidental correlation? False dilemma: Just because there are significant innovations now, does not mean that there would not be more significant innovations without software patents. Straw man: Stifling innovation is not the same as making "it so unprofitable to innovate that no one does it", which is the point you go on to attack. Coincidental correlation: Just because we have patents and then innovation does not prove that patents cause innovation.
Considering that innovation predates patents (so there cannot be an exclusive causal effect), where is your evidence that patents further innovation?
(Personally, I believe patents can encourage innovation, but I also believe in the proverb "too much of a good thing, is a bad thing.")
Apple paid Samsung around $8 billion last year. Samsung's revenue was more than $220 billion. Significant, but its loss would not exactly ruin Samsung.
FRAND patents don't work that way. There is not x% that everybody pays. Most FRAND licensing deals in this space involve small cash payments, but the bulk of the value is patent cross-licensing. This is the same issue between Apple and Motorola, as well as Apple and Nokia (that Apple settled for above FRAND payment rates, but no cross-licensing).
Apple is arguing that they should get the same rates as everybody else despite no patent cross-licensing deals. Samsung, Motorola, and Nokia think Apple should pay much higher rates considering they don't have any patents to cross-license.
Due to the crazy ownership structure of Samsung, nobody knows for sure how much money they have, but I suspect it rivals Apple's 100 billion. Remember that for the last couple of years, both Samsung and Apple have raked in about equal amount of profits (although Apple did it on less than half of Samsung's revenue). Prior to the last few of years, however, Samsung has been the more profitable company. Samsung's Electronics division made profits of almost $15 billion in 2011 on revenue of about $150 billion and remember that Samsung Electronics represents only about half of Samsung in terms of revenue and profits. Apple made about $33 billion in profits on revenue of $108 billion.
Cash will not make the difference for either of these companies.
While Apple is, no doubt, one of Samsung's largest customers, the $8 billion or so Apple paid Samsung last year isn't that significant compared to Samsung's more than $250 billion in revenue.
Between the two, Samsung is still the much larger company. Samsung's Electronics division alone is nearly 50% larger by revenue than Apple and Samsung is also one of the largest Shipbuilding, Construction, and Insurance companies in the world.
Remember that Samsung designed and will be making the "Retina" display for the new iPad, not because Apple wants them to, but because when Apple put out the RFP, Samsung was the only company in the world that could make the volume and quality LCD's demanded by Apple. Apple is hoping that LG and Sharp can get their acts together and can make displays for later production runs, but the initial units will all ship with Samsung, despite Apple pouring billions into Sharp for a new LCD manufacturing facility in Japan.
Read groklaw. They had thorough reporting of the jury selection. Nearly every juror that had a technical background were dismissed. It is long, but a good read. If you are interested in the case, I thought they had the best coverage. (I have no affiliation with the site).
A few highlights from the article. These are questions asked to the whole jury. Spoiler: number 14 gets excused right after these questions:
"Next question: Does anyone has a smartphone that uses Android system? Juror # 17 said yes. It is an HTC Droid Incredible. Had it since last September. "I am happy with the phone". Judge explained that you cannot reply on what she already knows about Android system. She said she can do it. Nothing against or in favor of Google."
"Raise your hand if anyone has specialized training in computer software or hardware development or design? # 17 and #14 raised their hands. #14 works with databases and Oracle is in that field. She writes software using Linux, SQL. She will be able to be impartial at the trial.
# 17 worked in the film industry and worked in web worlds using different browsers. She will be able to be impartial at the trial."
"here are geeky types of people and people who are not into technology. If you are on a geeky end, could you raise your hand? -- NO hands."
"Any knowledge of Java programming language? -- No.
#17 had heard about Java language, just heard about it. Living in the Bay area she'd heard about it. Never studied it or read manuals."
True, but according to the foreman, he was the lone holdout for Oracle most of that time and most of the questions submitted to the judge were from him. He finally conceded when it became obvious he could not sway even one other juror to join him. Interestingly, in the copyright phase, the hung jury on fair use was him and two other jurors for Oracle against the other nine.
In the US you are exempt on taxes up to I believe $85,000 per year so long as you are paying taxes in another country and meet certain other requirements, like length of time outside the country, etc.
I hate to reply to my own post, but I looked into this a little and while strange to me as an American, I now understand what's going on.
In the UK it is legal for private parties to charge another private party with a criminal act. It's called private prosecution and we have nothing like it in the U.S. FACT is legally allowed to charge these people with a crime, employ the police to seize their property for evidence (with a warrant), and act as prosecutor in front of the court (they can be sentenced to prison as an outcome). The crown (government) prosecutors can choose to take over the prosecution and even put a stop to it if they want, but they can also do nothing. So, turning the evidence over to FACT is not at all inconsistent with British law.
Personally, I find the idea of private prosecutions frightening.
In Linux at least, changing your mac address is trivial (ifconfig "device name" hw ether "new mac address"). The problem with that, and everything else they are doing, is that the real criminals will still be two steps ahead of the law, but the common people (their best customers) will pay. Crazy long-term business plan.
This happened in the UK, not the US. In the UK, they have something called a private prosecution. A private, non-governmental group, like FACT in this case, can start a criminal prosecution without the consent of the government. They have their own lawyers be prosecutors in court and they can use the police, with a warrant, to seize the property of other private citizens for the purposes of their investigations. Furthermore, they can secure convictions and prison sentences all without the slightest intervention of the government. That said, the government can choose to take over a private prosecution and/or stop a private prosecution if they desire. To say this system is strange to an American is an understatement, but this is the law in Britain.
You are confusing the UK and the US. In the UK they have something called a "private prosecution" whereby a private entity can bring you up on criminal charges even if the state (or crown) prosecutors decides that a crime was not committed. In that case, the private party can use the police (with a warrant) to seize your property for the purposes of their investigation. It is very foreign to an American, but this is how the legal system works in the UK.
Slashdot Mirror
A quick google, yielded that Ebay allows cancellation of gift certificates for up to 60 days after issuance and has been issuing these gift certificates prior to 2008.
"Retina Display" is not a type of display, it is a marketing term for a dense pixel display. While LG has made dense pixel display's for the iPhone, they do not appear on the iPad3, marketed under the name "Retina Display." I responded to a claim that Apple had somehow locked up the supply of "Retina Displays," which seems to me to be demonstrably false.
Apple paid them less than $8 billion in total revenue last year (less than $6 billion by some accounts). This was in their low margin components business as well. Samsung Electronics division made more than $140 billion in revenue and more than 70% of their profits came from their own phones and tablets. The takeaway here is that Apple accounts for less than 6% of Samsung's Electronics revenue and less than that of their profits.
Samsung Mobile Display is still a integral part of Samsung. It is 100% owned by Samsung Electronics and Samsung SDI. Samsung uses a complex circular ownership structure so the company at the top of the pyramid, Samsung Everland, can retain control of the entire company despite only owning a small piece. Either directly, or through Samsung Everland, Lee Gun Hee owns the majority stake in Samsung Life (and other subsidiaries), which in turn own the majority stake in Samsung Electronics (with other Samsung companies owning pieces as well). The company is firmly in the control of Lee Gun Hee and this family. I suggest you read up on the "jaebol" system in order to understand Samsung better. That is not to say that Samsung Mobile Display (or its parent Samsung Electronics) cannot push their own direction, but ultimately all these pieces must answer to same people.
I agree with your argument about sunk costs, but I can't seem to find anything to back up the claim that Samsung receives "massive subsidies" from Apple. In addition, because Samsung is not using the same technology in Apple's displays, it weakens the argument that Apple's volumes drastically decrease Samsung's costs in their own products.
Sometimes I feel like a Samsung shill on this site (I am not and I have many less than cordial things to say about them and the "jaebol" system in general), but it's done exclusively to balance out the over the top Apple rhetoric. I would like to add that I think Apple selecting Samsung screens paints Apple in a positive light. Despite their many flaws, the fact that Apple is willing to buy perhaps its most important component from a company they are essential at war with all over the planet, speaks volumes about their priorities. Constructing a product with the best components is more important to Apple than fighting Android. I do wish I had more positive things to say about Apple because I used to root for them in the old days. I am sad to see the company they have become.
While LG has a deal for the iPhone, my comments are about the iPad3 display. LG couldn't meet Apple's quality requirements for that particular display (at least in time for the initial run). http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/149539/retina-display-production-issues-persist-for-apples-new-ipad.
Samsung and LG are fierce competitors, but LG is only about a fifth the size of Samsung in terms of revenue and LG actually lost money last year, compared to the more than $20 billion in profits for Samsung. Samsung is in a better position here, but the tech world can be fickle, so who knows.
Apple only details specs, they do not design displays. The specs for the displays (size, pixel density, contrast, etc.) are sent to various manufacturers who design a display to meet the specs and submit examples to Apple. Apple then chooses displays that meet their targets and places orders. For the "retina display", only one company could originally meet all the requirements set by Apple, Samsung. Since then Sharp has also met their specs and will make some displays. LG is still trying to meets Apple's quality requirements. The result of this is that the vast majority of the "retina displays" were made by Samsung.
Nearly all the current retina displays are made by Samsung (with a small percentage made by Sharp). Do you really believe that Samsung (which shipped nearly 25% more smartphones than Apple last quarter) could not simply switch to the display they sell to Apple if they so chose? Samsung has chosen to go with their AMOLED displays because they offer more contrast and lower power consumption than the "retina display." AMOLED displays currently can not be produced at the pixel density desired by Apple, however, so Samsung is using more conventional technology on the display they sell to Apple.
I would consider the Apple insider a pro-Apple publication and they claim that LG is not making displays for Apple at this time because they haven't been able to meet Apple's quality standards. The only higher density display that has been proven (because someone actually took the device apart) is Samsung (link attached).
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/03/20/sharp_meets_apples_standards_for_ipad_retina_display_lg_lags_behind___report.html
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/03/15/teardown_of_apples_new_ipad_finds_samsung_built_retina_display_a5x_cpu.html
This is, of course, missing the point. Samsung is one of the 20 largest companies in the world (by revenue). Apple's business represents less than 1% of Samsung's profits. Samsung's most profitable business right now is the same as Apple's, phones and tablets. Samsung just overtook Nokia to become the world's largest phone maker and they shipped almost 25% more smartphones than Apple last quarter. Whether or not Apple continues to do business with Samsung will make little difference.
There are much better outlets for exceptional scammers and thieves; politics and wall street seem popular right now.
Interesting, where exactly will Apple go? Apple put out the requirements for the iPad3 ("retina") display. Only one company in the world was able to meet their quality requirements, Samsung. Why do you think that all the first run of iPad3's will have Samsung displays?
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/03/13/samsung_is_sole_supplier_of_apples_ipad_retina_displays___report.html
Apple is still doing business with Samsung because it doesn't have a choice, not because it wants to. Samsung is still doing business with Apple because they are making money.
We can agree on one thing: your evidence is circumstantial. Societies have undergone many changes since the 1500's. You have only demonstrated that patents do not completely eliminate innovation (you have not yet offered any evidence that patents do not stifle innovation). I find it curious that the rise in innovation coincides with the Enlightenment, which ushered in many changes to society, in addition to patents. It begs the question, given all the other changes, would innovation have happened at the same rate without patent law? It is, of course, impossible to answer. My gut feeling here is the same as you, but I feel your arguments go beyond the evidence itself.
As for modern software, are you seriously arguing that software patents are the reason (or even an important factor) for the increase in software innovation over the last 40 years? I suspect that a much stronger case could be made for advances in hardware and the diffusion of software knowledge outside of the patent system. I think a stronger case could even be made that the relative dearth of software patents prior to the 1990's, made the current growth possible.
The greater concern is not that innovation would have progressed further without patents. The concern is that software patents, which are a very recent phenomena, have reached a critical mass to actually hinder innovation moving forward. Only hindsight will offer any real evidence into the merits of this concern, but anecdotal evidence abounds.
Wow, where should I begin; false dilemma, straw man, coincidental correlation? False dilemma: Just because there are significant innovations now, does not mean that there would not be more significant innovations without software patents. Straw man: Stifling innovation is not the same as making "it so unprofitable to innovate that no one does it", which is the point you go on to attack. Coincidental correlation: Just because we have patents and then innovation does not prove that patents cause innovation.
Considering that innovation predates patents (so there cannot be an exclusive causal effect), where is your evidence that patents further innovation?
(Personally, I believe patents can encourage innovation, but I also believe in the proverb "too much of a good thing, is a bad thing.")
Apple paid Samsung around $8 billion last year. Samsung's revenue was more than $220 billion. Significant, but its loss would not exactly ruin Samsung.
FRAND patents don't work that way. There is not x% that everybody pays. Most FRAND licensing deals in this space involve small cash payments, but the bulk of the value is patent cross-licensing. This is the same issue between Apple and Motorola, as well as Apple and Nokia (that Apple settled for above FRAND payment rates, but no cross-licensing).
Apple is arguing that they should get the same rates as everybody else despite no patent cross-licensing deals. Samsung, Motorola, and Nokia think Apple should pay much higher rates considering they don't have any patents to cross-license.
Due to the crazy ownership structure of Samsung, nobody knows for sure how much money they have, but I suspect it rivals Apple's 100 billion. Remember that for the last couple of years, both Samsung and Apple have raked in about equal amount of profits (although Apple did it on less than half of Samsung's revenue). Prior to the last few of years, however, Samsung has been the more profitable company. Samsung's Electronics division made profits of almost $15 billion in 2011 on revenue of about $150 billion and remember that Samsung Electronics represents only about half of Samsung in terms of revenue and profits. Apple made about $33 billion in profits on revenue of $108 billion.
Cash will not make the difference for either of these companies.
While Apple is, no doubt, one of Samsung's largest customers, the $8 billion or so Apple paid Samsung last year isn't that significant compared to Samsung's more than $250 billion in revenue.
Between the two, Samsung is still the much larger company. Samsung's Electronics division alone is nearly 50% larger by revenue than Apple and Samsung is also one of the largest Shipbuilding, Construction, and Insurance companies in the world.
Remember that Samsung designed and will be making the "Retina" display for the new iPad, not because Apple wants them to, but because when Apple put out the RFP, Samsung was the only company in the world that could make the volume and quality LCD's demanded by Apple. Apple is hoping that LG and Sharp can get their acts together and can make displays for later production runs, but the initial units will all ship with Samsung, despite Apple pouring billions into Sharp for a new LCD manufacturing facility in Japan.
Read groklaw. They had thorough reporting of the jury selection. Nearly every juror that had a technical background were dismissed. It is long, but a good read. If you are interested in the case, I thought they had the best coverage. (I have no affiliation with the site).
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120416085550303
A few highlights from the article. These are questions asked to the whole jury. Spoiler: number 14 gets excused right after these questions:
"Next question: Does anyone has a smartphone that uses Android system? Juror # 17 said yes. It is an HTC Droid Incredible. Had it since last September. "I am happy with the phone". Judge explained that you cannot reply on what she already knows about Android system. She said she can do it. Nothing against or in favor of Google."
"Raise your hand if anyone has specialized training in computer software or hardware development or design? # 17 and #14 raised their hands. #14 works with databases and Oracle is in that field. She writes software using Linux, SQL. She will be able to be impartial at the trial.
# 17 worked in the film industry and worked in web worlds using different browsers. She will be able to be impartial at the trial."
"here are geeky types of people and people who are not into technology. If you are on a geeky end, could you raise your hand? -- NO hands."
"Any knowledge of Java programming language? -- No.
#17 had heard about Java language, just heard about it. Living in the Bay area she'd heard about it. Never studied it or read manuals."
Draw your own conclusions.
True, but according to the foreman, he was the lone holdout for Oracle most of that time and most of the questions submitted to the judge were from him. He finally conceded when it became obvious he could not sway even one other juror to join him. Interestingly, in the copyright phase, the hung jury on fair use was him and two other jurors for Oracle against the other nine.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/malicious+prosecution
I am guessing they take it more seriously in the UK than the US giving the wider latitude people have in bringing criminal charges.
In the US you are exempt on taxes up to I believe $85,000 per year so long as you are paying taxes in another country and meet certain other requirements, like length of time outside the country, etc.
I hate to reply to my own post, but I looked into this a little and while strange to me as an American, I now understand what's going on.
In the UK it is legal for private parties to charge another private party with a criminal act. It's called private prosecution and we have nothing like it in the U.S. FACT is legally allowed to charge these people with a crime, employ the police to seize their property for evidence (with a warrant), and act as prosecutor in front of the court (they can be sentenced to prison as an outcome). The crown (government) prosecutors can choose to take over the prosecution and even put a stop to it if they want, but they can also do nothing. So, turning the evidence over to FACT is not at all inconsistent with British law.
Personally, I find the idea of private prosecutions frightening.
you can get more creative than that. How about ca.5a.b1.66.b0.0b or fe.ce.5b.a5.eb.al
(1 = i or l, 5 = s, 6 = g)
In Linux at least, changing your mac address is trivial (ifconfig "device name" hw ether "new mac address"). The problem with that, and everything else they are doing, is that the real criminals will still be two steps ahead of the law, but the common people (their best customers) will pay. Crazy long-term business plan.
This happened in the UK, not the US. In the UK, they have something called a private prosecution. A private, non-governmental group, like FACT in this case, can start a criminal prosecution without the consent of the government. They have their own lawyers be prosecutors in court and they can use the police, with a warrant, to seize the property of other private citizens for the purposes of their investigations. Furthermore, they can secure convictions and prison sentences all without the slightest intervention of the government. That said, the government can choose to take over a private prosecution and/or stop a private prosecution if they desire. To say this system is strange to an American is an understatement, but this is the law in Britain.
You are confusing the UK and the US. In the UK they have something called a "private prosecution" whereby a private entity can bring you up on criminal charges even if the state (or crown) prosecutors decides that a crime was not committed. In that case, the private party can use the police (with a warrant) to seize your property for the purposes of their investigation. It is very foreign to an American, but this is how the legal system works in the UK.