Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit in the US

[Azure]

One of the problems Apple had was with consumers walking into a 'store' and mistaking a Samsung product for an Apple product. Sounds absurd, and it is, but why does it matter if there is no iPhone available at that 'store' to choose.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

You're missing the point, even if hardware costs decreased and market size expanded, the consumer is still paying more in litigation costs that he/she would otherwise not have had to pay without litigation or fair cross licensing deals that were previously considered norm. Even if the overall price of a smartphone decreases (which it has not with SGS BOM costs of $200 and SGSII BOM costs of $209 vs MSRP of $649 and $699 respectively... seems to indicate they just packed more in at the roughly the same price), the price would have dropped more had the legal fees not played a factor in the overall costs. That is harm to the consumer.

What makes you think the trend will stop? I'd also argue that billion dollar settlements will set the precedent of increasing consumer costs that otherwise not have be paid by the consumer with either increasing royalty fees in lopsided licensing deals or larger/more numerous settlements. This settlement has set the precedent that non-essential design patents are worth more than entire corporations and their patents. Lawyers and corporations will go to where the money is. Until there is real patent reform in the States, the trend is likely to continue. It has for the past two decades and with continued bipartisan bickering I doubt any meaningful reform will come in the next.

Further to this line of inquiry:

http://www.slate.com/articles/busine..._button_chunky

Blackberry maker Research in Motion is also a winner on these same grounds, which is why both companies’ shares started Monday sharply up. The verdict was essentially confirmation that under contemporary conditions, if you want to get in the technology game, a product people want to buy isn’t good enough. You’ll also need an arsenal of patents that you can use in countersuits to force a cross-licensing agreement with the incumbents you’re trying to challenge. Consequently, Samsung’s loss is a huge gain for a product-poor, patent-rich firm like RIM. The patent system operates as a kind of tax on today’s innovators, and the jury’s verdict confirms that the tax is not a small one. Optimists will say this kind of strong protection for first movers creates big financial incentives to innovate. But a more realistic view is that technology companies are generally trying their best to innovate and it’s simply difficult. In that view, jury rulings in favor of incumbents will simply reduce competition and raise prices for consumers.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Red

I would like competition to push Apple, but what has Samsung innovated? Nothing.

The evidence of copying is right there in the pictures of old and new samsung phones.

Actually it can be argued that Samsung did innovate. The display technology used in some of your iPhones, Samsung. A lot of the memory modules used in iPhones, Samsung. At lot of the mobile SoC technology used in smartphones Samsung. Samsung styling might not be the most original until recently, but their ability to innovate is far from nothing.

Evidence can be cherry picked to show really anything a lawyer conjures up. For example I can throw up this graphic.

Spoiler!

Neither this slide and Apple's slide really offer the entire story, the truth is probably something in between. You really have to take as much evidence as possible into account before making broad and overly concrete statements otherwise someone is going to call you out on it. Just saying.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by Azure

One of the problems Apple had was with consumers walking into a 'store' and mistaking a Samsung product for an Apple product. Sounds absurd, and it is, but why does it matter if there is no iPhone available at that 'store' to choose.

That's only one of the problems Apple had though, most people do a lot of research before getting a new phone, and if you can get a very similar phone for 1/2 the price why wouldn't you?

And that claim is not that absurd to me because I have heard many salespeople at cell phone stores offer substitutes if the iPhone is out of stock/too expensive/ or not carried (as in the case of Telus when it didn't have the iPhone)

[Tinordi]

Your phone being too expensive is not your competitors problem.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

I am not sure why reduced market demand doesn't lead to direct losses for Apple? How is saying that Apple has be compensated for every copied phone on the AT&T network different than saying that Apple has to be paid for all copied phones? The difference is minor in my opinion because as I said before the consumer could have switched carriers.

While I agree to a point, in this case Apple was limiting itself by only having the iPhone available on AT&T. There are still plenty of people who would not want to use AT&T, would want to use Sprint or Verizon and would 'wait'.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Actually it can be argued that Samsung did innovate. The display technology used in some of your iPhones, Samsung. A lot of the memory modules used in iPhones, Samsung. At lot of the mobile SoC technology used in smartphones Samsung. Samsung styling might not be the most original until recently, but their ability to innovate is far from nothing.

Evidence can be cherry picked to show really anything a lawyer conjures up. For example I can throw up this graphic.
...

Neither this slide and Apple's slide really offer the entire story, the truth is probably something in between. You really have to take as much evidence as possible into account before making broad and overly concrete statements otherwise someone is going to call you out on it. Just saying.

Yes you could throw that graphic up but it would be junk:

http://androidcommunity.com/who-was-...nked-20110420/

This has been a pretty large story over the last few days. Apple is suing Samsung basically for stealing their iPhone design. A photo appeared showing what is the Samsung F700 claiming it was before the iPhone, and that has started a little firestorm of discussion. Both our sister site SlashGear and all of us here on Android Community have it out for incorrect factoids, thusly here come the dogs – onward, to truth!

When you really get down to this stories deep roots, it looks like in the beginning Apple had the design and Samsung tried to copy it, but failed miserably.

[Azure]

If people do their research on buying a new phone as you claim, they would obviously know whether or not they want an iPhone. So they go to US Cellular, and ask about the iPhone. Sales person says they don't have one, so they buy the Samsung Galaxy instead. Is that Samsung stealing market share from Apple, or Apple being ######ed since they offer the iPhone exclusive deal to AT&T for years before giving anyone else a chance.

I honestly don't see how you could say Samsung was stealing market share from Apple in that case since it was 'impossible' for the iPhone to even be sold in the first place. Apple couldn't have gained market share at or through US Cellular even if Samsung didn't exist.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Your phone being too expensive is not your competitors problem.

I am not sure what your point here is Tinordi? That a company cannot charge a premium for a premium product? That intellectual property shouldn't be protected?

Putting aside the obvious disagreements many have with Apple's approach here (litigious), and the problems small and big with the jury's handling of the verdict, Apple has a responsibility to it's shareholders to maximize return and it is doing this by protecting its intellectual property.

[sclitheroe]

I think Samsung is gonna take all this in stride...they've been punished before:

White sued the Samsung Electronics corporation over its use of a humorous ad featuring a robot turning letters on a game show. The lower court decision in Samsung's favor was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 971 F.2d 1395 (1992), and the Ninth Circuit denied a rehearing over a colorful dissent by Judge Kozinski. White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. 989 F.2d 1512 (9th Cir. 1993). The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. White, 508 U.S. 951 (1993). White ultimately was awarded $403,000 in damages.

Yes, Vanna White.

[Tinordi]

I was referring to your statement here:

That's only one of the problems Apple had though, most people do a lot of research before getting a new phone, and if you can get a very similar phone for 1/2 the price why wouldn't you?

This issue is Apple's problem. Apple's R&D costs for the iphone are basically equivalent to the rest of the industry so it's not like Apple is at a competitive disadvantage by having innovative products. Apple doesn't own the market on touch screen portable internet devices any more than Henry Ford owned the internal combustion engine market. If I can get a device similar to what Apple's does for half the price then I'll get it.

This whole case is an example of Apple trying to maintain the high margins for its devices by litigating against competitors to the cost of consumers like you and me. That's the whole problem.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Actually according to the scope in the case as defined by the courts for the trial in the jury instructions, it should only be for actually losses.

Apple has to go before the courts to amend this if that's what was being claimed. Lawyers will be very specific in cases like this because changes in market demand are broad are VERY hard to prove and attribute.

The only actual loses were loss of licensing on devices sold. Every other type of loss is a guess of some type based on many factors. In that respect, every Samsung phone which uses a patented feature, regardless of carrier, would be counted.

I am not sure that's what the award are supposed to be dealing with though, but maybe it is. I am certainly no patent expert.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by Azure

If people do their research on buying a new phone as you claim, they would obviously know whether or not they want an iPhone. So they go to US Cellular, and ask about the iPhone. Sales person says they don't have one, so they buy the Samsung Galaxy instead. Is that Samsung stealing market share from Apple, or Apple being ######ed since they offer the iPhone exclusive deal to AT&T for years before giving anyone else a chance.

I honestly don't see how you could say Samsung was stealing market share from Apple in that case since it was 'impossible' for the iPhone to even be sold in the first place. Apple couldn't have gained market share at or through US Cellular even if Samsung didn't exist.

You can argue that Apple was confident in its ability to make successful sales through one vendor by going exclusive with AT&T precisely because it was confident in its ability to protect its IP. If IP was not protected then I cannot see why AT&T itself would have entered into any kind of deal. Putting aside whether you believe the patents are valid or not, making an argument that offering a cheaper alternative (on any carrier) to the iPhone did not affect sales is verging on the absurd, in my opinion.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Rathji

The only actual loses were loss of licensing on devices sold. Every other type of loss is a guess of some type based on many factors. In that respect, every Samsung phone which uses a patented feature, regardless of carrier, would be counted.

I am not sure that's what the award are supposed to be dealing with though, but maybe it is. I am certainly no patent expert.

Which begs the question, why are only the phones in question being sought for a ban? Samsung uses the same interface(Touchwiz) on all their phones, which featured many of the features that they apparently stole. Bounce back, pinch to zoom, etc, etc. On top of that, literally every single device Samsung sells has rounded corners and if you think the Samsung phone with a slide out keyboard is a iPhone prototype, then any Samsung phone should be bought into question.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I was referring to your statement here:



This issue is Apple's problem. Apple's R&D costs for the iphone are basically equivalent to the rest of the industry so it's not like Apple is at a competitive disadvantage by having innovative products. Apple doesn't own the market on touch screen portable internet devices any more than Henry Ford owned the internal combustion engine market. If I can get a device similar to what Apple's does for half the price then I'll get it.

This whole case is an example of Apple trying to maintain the high margins for its devices by litigating against competitors to the cost of consumers like you and me. That's the whole problem.

Yes it is Apple's problem that the iPhone is much more expensive than other phones in the market, but it is now Apple's problem as well that it cannot count on patent protection any more? If I made a new invention (the R&D cost is immaterial) I should be able to count on protection to extract whatever market share I can out of it, if I price my phone too high people have to choice to buy a cheaper one, but it cannot be the one I have a patent on. I understand your concern around consumer choice and price, but IP should drive more innovation, why can't Samsung drive it's own innovation stream?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

You can argue that Apple was confident in its ability to make successful sales through one vendor by going exclusive with AT&T precisely because it was confident in its ability to protect its IP. If IP was not protected then I cannot see why AT&T itself would have entered into any kind of deal. Putting aside whether you believe the patents are valid or not, making an argument that offering a cheaper alternative (on any carrier) to the iPhone did not affect sales is verging on the absurd, in my opinion.

How perverse this discussion has become. Now making things cheaper is bad.

I refer back to my previous point that the interests of apple shareholders are opposed to broader social interests.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

I am not sure what your point here is Tinordi? That a company cannot charge a premium for a premium product? That intellectual property shouldn't be protected?

Putting aside the obvious disagreements many have with Apple's approach here (litigious), and the problems small and big with the jury's handling of the verdict, Apple has a responsibility to it's shareholders to maximize return and it is doing this by protecting its intellectual property.

I ducked out of this thread for awhile but it still stuns me that people think that Apple's approach here was any different than the approach pretty much every company would have taken based on the same facts.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

How perverse this discussion has become. Now making things cheaper is bad.

I refer back to my previous point that the interests of apple shareholders are opposed to broader social interests.

Of course they are, Apple isn't a research institute, it's a public company.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

You can argue that Apple was confident in its ability to make successful sales through one vendor by going exclusive with AT&T precisely because it was confident in its ability to protect its IP. If IP was not protected then I cannot see why AT&T itself would have entered into any kind of deal. Putting aside whether you believe the patents are valid or not, making an argument that offering a cheaper alternative (on any carrier) to the iPhone did not affect sales is verging on the absurd, in my opinion.

Or Apple didn't know how successful the iPhone would be so they took a big risk and let AT&T talk to them into having exclusive rights. AT&T also took a big risk because they probably paid Apple pretty good money for those rights.

In the end it was a win-win for both, but at the time nobody knew that.

To break it down even further, not all those carriers with the various Samsung phones that have been brought into question offered nationwide service. Nor were they all capable of even carrying the iPhone...IF they wanted too.

T-Mobile, Sprint and others use different spectrum from the 850/1900 that AT&T and Rogers used when they signed the exclusive iPhone deals. So they weren't even CAPABLE of carrying the iPhone, even if they wanted too.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by valo403

I ducked out of this thread for awhile but it still stuns me that people think that Apple's approach here was any different than the approach pretty much every company would have taken based on the same facts.

Don't get me wrong, I don't blame Apple for taking this course. I'm commenting on the fact that this is a very socially unoptimal outcome and that anyone who doesn't think so must be an Apple shareholder.

Sure there needs to be some protection of IP but this is ridiculous. Should we all be paying licensing fees for brake pedals, steering wheels, rear view mirrors to henry ford or whomever could have patented them?

The allegory is actually spot on. Mobile computing is another wave of incredible innovation much like the personal vehicle was a hundred years ago.