Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 15,660
- Location
- The land of milk & beans
Apple vs Samsung, court orders Samsung to show Apple 5 new phones
- Thread starter mrk
- Start date
Permabanned
- Joined
- 29 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 1,922
- Location
- fife, Scotland
Why on earth would they refuse to supply to them
Because Apple are taking this patent trolling to a whole new level, against a company that supply them with a large amount of materials that make their products so desirable?
Really? You can't see the point? It's not a complex one. Everything in your reply is nothing to do with the point, if that helps at all.
You mean like Apple copied Windows Mobile who had that design for years...?
The GS and touchwizz are definite copies of the iPhone, however most of the other patent issues are just ********. Luckily the UK is sensible and have given sensible results when disputes have been settled here (along with S Korea who fined both).
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 15,660
- Location
- The land of milk & beans
Oh there's no doubting what Samsung have been doing but A) $1bn is a ridiculous amount and B) half of Apples patents shouldn't have been granted in the first place.
How are they taking it to a whole new level?
A few hundred patent cases, compared to companies like Motorola that have 11000 patent cases.
So you thing smasung will consider breaking contract and lose their biggest customer. Yeah that would do Samsung any good, there stairs and profits would plumit.
This is not an unusual circumstance.
And apple copyed loads of other mobile phones.....
As there was mobiles phone that were out before apples iphone
that had LCD screens, Volume buttons, Built in Camera, Power button, 3.5mm Ear phone socket and apple copyed all these ideas and used them in there iphone
And apple copyed loads of other mobile phones.....
As there was mobiles phone that were out before apples iphone
that had LCD screens,Volume buttons,Built in Camera,Power button,3.5mm Ear phone socket and apple copyed these ideas and used them in there phone
And those are licensed, or not patentable.
Just like apple has to license loads of key technologies like wifi, 3G and others.
There's not been a cut maybe because smartphones sales in general are growing 40+% but everybody who buys a galaxy s3 is one less person who might buy an iphone. Unless for some reason they need 2 smartphones. Apples share of the market is getting smaller and Samsungs is getting bigger.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 14,081
- Location
- Between Realities
Thank god for IP stealing, If Samsung hadnt taken 'apples original patent', we'd have missed out on the Galaxy\Nexus and Note. All of which I personally think take what apple did, improved it and made it more open.
I wouldnt go near an iphone these days, there are so many better alternatives
I wouldnt go near an iphone these days, there are so many better alternatives
So come on what is the point?
People simply don't understand patents and think its simply pinch to zoom, that is not the patent.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 29 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 1,922
- Location
- fife, Scotland
I said after the contract ended, not breaking the current contract in my original post. Also about 95% of all patent disputes I have seen in the last 2 years involving phones, tablets etc is Apple either being sued, or suing someone.
Also I never meant this as a 100% effective, perfect measure, I am not exactly a marketing leader
. I just would love to see this stuff end once and for all and for Apple to get what they deserve.
Last edited:
Whilst im not really on either side of the fence regarding Apple vs Samsung (i dont own either), its hard to deny Samsung have been copying Apple designs.
Although i feel some of the patents Apple have been granted are ridiculous, its blatantly obvious what samsung have been doing. Just look at the Samsung's Chromebox, its quite funny actually.
because apple invented the volume control nob ? because if you bother to look thats what both of those devices are imitating.
go look at old stero systems and hifis
Mobile phones dropped last year, at least in the USA, apple was the only company to expand in the USA. Android sold several million less units and lost just under 6% market share. Where apple coupntinued to grow.
So no you have no point.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,691
- Location
- North
I agree some of the patents shouldnt have been granted, but is really $1 billion (£600 million) that much in the scale of things?. Samsung Mobile division is it main money maker and they made a $4.7 billion operating profit in Q4 2011.
I think most would agree Samsung have been copying the look and style of Apple devices and it wouldnt be too far fetched to conclude that had an impact on Samsungs rise as a major player, off the back of Apple.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,691
- Location
- North
In those particular devices im told Apples circular design thing at the bottom is removable cover, so you can add more ram, on samsungs device it serves no function apart from just looking like the Apple device.
I said after the contract ended, not breaking the current contract in my original post. Also about 95% of all patent disputes I have seen in the last 2 years involving phones, tablets etc is Apple either being sued, or suing someone.
Also I never meant this as a 100% effective, perfect measure, I am not exactly a marketing leader
Oh wow, only seen what media has spoon fed you. Media is interested in apple, it isn't interested in others.
Yah really taking it to the next level.
Again why would Samsung lose a massive chunk in profits? Lose share. Price and everything else. For. What is a normal day in the office.
Last edited:
I'm sceptical of this point. Samsung is the world's largest electronics firm by revenue. The Galaxy S2 was the best selling smartphone of 2011. The Galaxy S3 sold 10m units in less than 2 months from being announced (9m of which were before the device even hit the market). Samsung are the world's largest supplier of mobile handsets.
Comparatively, Apple sold 4m iPhone 4S' at preorder. They have not shifted as many handsets at Samsung for quite some time.
Whilst they would by no means take any joy from kicking Apple to the curb, out of the two they have a whole lot less to lose. Apple would not be able to get up to scale anytime soon with a new supplier, which would not be helpful considering a rumored iPhone 5 is just around the corner and Apple's supply lines are regularly stretched to breaking point as it is.
From where I'm sitting, Samsung could quite easily destroy Apple's Q3, Q4 and possibly even Q1'13 numbers - sending their stock into a right tumble.
Let's not forget that Samsung are an absolute tech monolith, already entrenched in the Eastern markets Apple is desperately trying to get a foothold in. They may not have $100bn in cash sitting around, but then Apple's cash is in a precarious tax position anyway and is not in a position to be thrown into getting suppliers to scale.
Of course, it's an entirely hypothetical and highly unlikely scenario, but you give the impression that Samsung are a delicate little flower that are dependent on Apple. I'm not convinced that there is much truth in that.
That's not the impression give it at all.
But apple is a huge buyer and smasung in a lot of countries has not outsold the iPhone at all.
The. Fact is they are not going to Vut their nose off to spite there face. Patent wars are normal. Different company departments are not going to do anything like that.
And also destroy their numbers? So you know the contract is expiring do you so they can instantly withhold components? It's also not like apple can't and don't have agreements in place with others.
But apple is a huge buyer and smasung in a lot of countries has not outsold the iPhone at all.
The. Fact is they are not going to Vut their nose off to spite there face. Patent wars are normal. Different company departments are not going to do anything like that.
And also destroy their numbers? So you know the contract is expiring do you so they can instantly withhold components? It's also not like apple can't and don't have agreements in place with others.