Options
Apple seeks $40 Per 'infringing' handset againt Samsung
Everything Goes
Posts: 12,972 Forum Member
✭✭
The war continues....
This time Apple seeks $40 per 'infringing' handset from Samsung. Apple are still concerned about their market share
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/31/apple_samsung_new_patent_trial/
This time Apple seeks $40 per 'infringing' handset from Samsung. Apple are still concerned about their market share
Apple is claiming that 10 Sammy devices, including the popular Galaxy SIII, infringe on five of its patents, covering tech like the famous slide-to-unlock feature, auto-spelling corrections and highlighting phone numbers directly from emails and web pages for easy dialing. Samsung is arguing that four of the five patents, excluding slide-to-unlock, were licensed from Google as part of its Android OS and that the Chocolate Factory was working on its tech before Apple filed its patents.
But commentators are already saying that Apple's $40 per device is pretty excessive. There are hundreds of thousands of patents at work in mobile devices and while some are more valuable than others, it's going to be tough to argue that a mere five patents should entitle a firm to such a high percentage of a smartphone's price tag. Given that high-end smartphones are typically introduced at around the $300 mark, $40 would be a whopping 13 per cent cut.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/31/apple_samsung_new_patent_trial/
0
Comments
This is a war in which only the lawyers will be the winners.
Also not forgetting the LG Prada was developed before the iphone as well. Desperation shows no bounds here!
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/8/5590278/heres-how-apple-figured-out-the-extra-2-19-billion-it-wants-from
Illegal activity?? Wasn't it Samsung who got busted for employing students to write negative comments about the HTC One??
I am not sure why you are so-anti-apple did they turn you down for a phone or something?
Apple are seeking what they think they deserve in damages irrespective of what we think is a reasonable price for Samsung to pay if any.
And last of all Apple make hell of a lot of profit and they are not exactly short of cash.
I am not pro-apple nor anti-samsung I hop between all platforms and that includes windows phone but posts like yours do not contribute towards threads they just invite flaming.
the patents that make 3G work for example are less per device than that.
Presumably, rightly or wrongly, its based on what they think they have lost in sales, not on the cost of a patent.
I'm feeling generous so here's one to start you off Apple. Fit your next model with a camera that is absolutely the best on any phone. Make it something REALLY special.
How about they innovate and compete with their own products instead of all these frivolous law suits. However when you have biased American judges like Lucy Koh why do they need to.
JK Shin needs to get himself a green card and then work on getting himself US citizenship.
Oh c'mon, that can't be true (or you have very few friends). 90% of Android owners do not "pick" Android. They buy a cheap and cheerful phone that meets their requirements regardless of O/S. Most of the rest probably go for things like the big screen or hyped up camera. It's a very small percentage of phone owners who buy primarily based upon the O/S it is running (just geeks like you and me).
I very much doubt that's true.
Yes illegal activity, price fixing, to which they were found guilty of. All companies are dodgy we all know that but Apple take it to another level.
What Apple consider deserved or owing and what is right and practical in thew real world are 2 completely different things I'm afraid.
I apologise you feel this post doesn't meet your strict criteria for criticism but when such ludicrous amounts in damages are sought we all suffer in the long run. I therefore don't apologise for calling Apple on the many things they try and pull to the detriment of us all.
So with that criteria people only buy iphones for the badge then? Can't be the os as you have already said and there is no stand out feature on an iphone to choose above any other phone ;-)
Apple's price fixing, the way it has forced certain rules on operators that would normally tell a company to sod off, but can't because it's so vital to sell the iPhone (maybe in the future, we'll see some operators just saying to Apple 'Sorry, we're not going to range this model'), is also just as bad.
When a company gets so ridiculously big and powerful, it thinks it can do anything it likes. That's how we see other companies get massive, then get taken down a peg or two. Sometimes big companies don't just get small, they go completely.
This latest case is another farce, but it's interesting to see what's being revealed as a result. No big surprises, but still interesting!
I'd have actually thought that any big company would avoid court to prevent such information getting out, but I guess Apple and Samsung know that the people that care about the case already know. Joe Public who buys a Samsung or Apple religiously whenever a new device comes out won't have a clue, or care, or will still defend whatever camp they sit in.
As for their "illegal activity" that had absolutely nothing to do with iPhones. It was about trying to prevent a competitor (Amazon) securing domination over the eBook sales market. Yeah, they shouldn't have done it, and yeah they broke the law, but that hardly affects their relationship with Samsung.
Price fixing is illegal, but loads of businesses do it and have very clever ways to get around the laws.
The rest of what Apple does isn't illegal, it's just taking advantage of having something that people really, really want. Thus enjoying huge profit margins that other companies would kill for, with operators willing to do anything to be able to sell them.
The question is whether Apple can still continue doing this in the long term. My guess is that it probably can unless there's some incredible scandal or similar that simply makes Apple a toxic brand or 'uncool'.
Likewise with Samsung.
I would suspect that for a lot of people cost and form factor are two if the biggest factors in making a purchase.
If Android phones are a available in a far wider range of price points and designs then I think that's going to be a much bigger factor than how much they can customise things.
Only if you think the only two factors are 'badge' and 'OS'. But why would you think that?
yes true but profits have fallen consistently quarter after quarter.
How can fixing ebook prices have nothing to do with smartphones
Because tdenson just told me so, that OS is not a consideration in buying a phone so what would be a reason to buy an iphone? if not the brand.
Unless your saying he is wrong, are you?
I'm assuming there are more factors than 'brand' and 'OS'.
For example cost, design, size, eco system, whether or not a person had other devices using the same.
I don't think you can argue, as you seem to doing, that if someone doesn't buy a phone because of the OS, then they must be buying it because of the brand.
I would have thought it far more likely that their decision is based on a combination of all of the above.
design - hard to say possible, but very doubtful alone
size - tdenson has already said people buy "cheap and cheerful that meets their need" that would include size.
ecosystem - that's os
So not sure based on the above that leaves much other than badge according to the tdenson criteria. I am not arguing anything I never made a statement as to why people buy phones.
possible for some as you they may have had iphone before etc agreed but that would also apply to android, if you maintain that then you think tdenson is wrong, is he?
I'm gonna use one of your sayings, and say the cost is a red herring. Most people get phones on contracts, so cost really isn't a problem for most.
Brand and OS are i would say a bigger part than cost.
Yes, quite right. Price fixing is illegal.
Samsung guilty of LCD display price fixing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20910299
Samsung guilty of DRAM price fixing: http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2005/212002.htm