Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 19th Sep 2011 21:43 UTC
Legal So, after a bunch of attacks from Apple, Samsung seems to have gone on the offensive against the gadget maker from Cupertino - and big time, too. In three countries, France, Australia, and South Korea, Samsung has filed patent infringement lawsuits against Apple - with the South Korea suit being the weird one. Unlike Apple's software patents and napkin scribbles community designs, Samsung is using actual hardware patents.
Order by: Score:
what goes around
by fran on Mon 19th Sep 2011 21:57 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

Apple starting this patent war against Samsung was really foolish.

Reply Score: 12

RE: what goes around
by kristoph on Mon 19th Sep 2011 22:30 UTC in reply to "what goes around"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Not really. When Apple gets the Nortel patents no one will be able to build a 4g phone without tripping over one of those.

Ultimately though, Apple's goal here is to confuse, frustrate and generally distract Samsung. Neither Apple or Samsung can really stop each others devices from actually getting to market for a substantive length of time.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: what goes around
by JAlexoid on Mon 19th Sep 2011 23:34 UTC in reply to "RE: what goes around"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

A) If Apple and the other bunch gets them (see Novel patent scenario)
B) Samsung will have the license from Microsoft and Apple will have to STFU
C) They will not actually own the patents, they will co-own them

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: what goes around
by kristoph on Tue 20th Sep 2011 00:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: what goes around"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

(a) Google pretty much guaranteed that by buying up a bunch of patents from the other guys and giving them to HTC. I actually think it was a given anyway because so much money was at stake.

(b/c) The terms of the Nortel deal are that Apple owns the 4g patents and the others get a non-transferable license so unless Samsung buys RIM (which is not as wacky an idea as it seems) their not going to have license to them. They will have a license for them for Microsoft Windows based phones obviously.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: what goes around
by JAlexoid on Wed 21st Sep 2011 11:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: what goes around"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

The terms of the Nortel deal are that Apple owns the 4g patents

Share the link to the text of the Nortel deal, if you please.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: what goes around
by glarepate on Tue 20th Sep 2011 00:37 UTC in reply to "RE: what goes around"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

When Apple gets the Nortel patents no one will be able to build a 4g phone without tripping over one of those.


[Speaking of tripping ...]

Based on what? The only way Apple can use them is in defending itself against being sued for patent infringement. You still don't understand how that works, do you?

===
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/082211-oin-wants-to-hinder-no...

In April, the DOJ limited the sale of Novell's patents by making the patents subject to both the GPL and the OIN license. This essentially converted them into defensive patents only. Patents covered by the OIN cannot be used to collect royalties.
===

Ultimately though, Apple's goal here is to confuse, frustrate and generally distract Samsung.


Samsung doesn't seem to be too confused. Maybe a little too patient. Apple seems to be confusing and distracting you unless your comments don't actually reflect your thinking and are just a smokescreen/astroturfing gambit. If you aren't disinforming then you are sadly confused.

Reply Score: 8

RE[3]: what goes around
by kristoph on Tue 20th Sep 2011 01:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: what goes around"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Based on what? The only way Apple can use them is in defending itself against being sued for patent infringement. You still don't understand how that works, do you?


I sadly know more about patents then I care to admit.

In April, the DOJ limited the sale of Novell's patents by making the patents subject to both the GPL and the OIN license. This essentially converted them into defensive patents only. Patents covered by the OIN cannot be used to collect royalties.


You understand this passage is about Novell not Nortel right?

In the Nortel case Apple would own the patents outright. If the DOJ places restrictions on the Nortel deal those patents won't be worth $4b and there will lots of pissed off people who hope to recoup their losses from the Nortel bankruptcy.

I suppose it's possible the DOJ would acti in the public interest like this. I doubt it though.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: what goes around
by tanishaj on Tue 20th Sep 2011 17:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: what goes around"
tanishaj Member since:
2010-12-22

" When Apple gets the Nortel patents no one will be able to build a 4g phone without tripping over one of those.


[Speaking of tripping ...]

In April, the DOJ limited the sale of Novell's patents by making the patents subject to both the GPL and the OIN license. This essentially converted them into defensive patents only. Patents covered by the OIN cannot be used to collect royalties.
"

This is great information but you do realize that Nortel and Novell are two different companies (and two different pools of patents) right?

Reply Score: 2

v RE: what goes around
by jackeebleu on Tue 20th Sep 2011 20:04 UTC in reply to "what goes around"
RE[2]: what goes around
by fran on Tue 20th Sep 2011 20:53 UTC in reply to "RE: what goes around"
fran Member since:
2010-08-06

Jackeebleu

BBC Article 22 Jul
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14238741

"Another Apple target is Samsung Electronics. The South Korean company has countersued, claiming that Apple is infringing some of its 28,700 patents held in the United States alone. "

"A top Samsung executive told me that more than 50% of an iPhone's components (by value) are made by Samsung. Several hundred Samsung engineers work at Apple's headquarters in Cupertino to help develop the next iPhone."

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: what goes around
by Finalzone on Wed 21st Sep 2011 05:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: what goes around"
Finalzone Member since:
2005-07-06

Jackeebleu

BBC Article 22 Jul
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14238741


One thing BBC got wrong and need more analysis: Florian Mueller isn't patent expert, he is only a pretender.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: what goes around
by libray on Tue 20th Sep 2011 21:09 UTC in reply to "RE: what goes around"
libray Member since:
2005-08-27

USA! USA! USA! USA!

... this is not the WWF^H^H^H WWE

Reply Score: 2

waste
by kristoph on Mon 19th Sep 2011 22:33 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

These patent lawsuits are such a waste of money and human creativity.

(Also, obligatory complaint about another lame patent piece getting headlined while actually news about OS'es winds up in the sidebar.)

Reply Score: 6

RE: waste
by tupp on Tue 20th Sep 2011 22:09 UTC in reply to "waste"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

These patent lawsuits are such a waste of money and human creativity.

Yes. Especially now that it is Apple that is on the defensive.

/sarcasm

Reply Score: 5

The fair thing to do.......
by robojerk on Mon 19th Sep 2011 22:35 UTC
robojerk
Member since:
2006-01-10

Block the sale of all devices from Samsung, HTC, Motorola, Apple, Nokia, LG, Asus, Acer, Dell, Microsoft, Kodak, HP, Sony Ericson, etc........

Since they all seem infringe on one another's patents it does seem like the right thing to do......

Reply Score: 18

RE: The fair thing to do.......
by JAlexoid on Mon 19th Sep 2011 23:34 UTC in reply to "The fair thing to do......."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Block everyone from breathing, since you might breathe in a patented chemical....

...when the Editors of the Guide were sued by the families of those who had died as a result of taking the entry on the planet Traal literally (it said "Ravenous Bugblatter beasts often make a very good meal for visiting tourists" instead of "Ravenous Bugblatter beasts often make a very good meal of visiting tourists") they claimed that the first version of the sentence was the more aesthetically pleasing, summoned a qualified poet to testify under oath that beauty was truth, truth beauty and hoped thereby to prove that the guilty party was Life itself for failing to be either beautiful or true. The judges concurred, and in a moving speech held that Life itself was in contempt of court, and duly confiscated it from all those there present before going off to enjoy a pleasant evening's ultragolf.


Edited 2011-09-19 23:37 UTC

Reply Score: 11

v ha
by rubberneck on Mon 19th Sep 2011 23:55 UTC
Comment Title
by Bringbackanonposting on Mon 19th Sep 2011 23:56 UTC
Bringbackanonposting
Member since:
2005-11-16

Gee I'd laugh if Apple couldn't sell the iPhone5 here. ;)

Reply Score: 8

Nationalism
by ozonehole on Tue 20th Sep 2011 04:18 UTC
ozonehole
Member since:
2006-01-07

I've spent a good deal of time in South Korea - believe me, the Koreans do not take well to anyone insulting their country. And Apple, with their attacks on Samsung, are insulting a national champion. When Apple finally finds itself in a Korean court squaring off against Samsung, they are going to wish they never started this.

Edited 2011-09-20 04:19 UTC

Reply Score: 10

RE: Nationalism
by robojerk on Tue 20th Sep 2011 05:07 UTC in reply to "Nationalism"
robojerk Member since:
2006-01-10

What market share does Apple have in S. Korea?

A lot of consumers love home (country) brands. For example; the PS3 and Wii (both Japanese products) far outsell the Xbox 360 (N. American) in Japan (I think it's still true). Does Apple have a significant market share in S. Korea to really be upset about losing the market completely?

I could imagine the PR black eye would be worse than the financial loss of the S. Korea market.

Edited 2011-09-20 05:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Nationalism
by kahen on Tue 20th Sep 2011 07:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Nationalism"
kahen Member since:
2009-09-07

I believe Apple's marketshare in S. Korea is virtually non-existent. The reason being that doing online banking or really much of anything online there requires MSIE because of choices made over a decade ago regarding encryption. The current system basically boils down to "you can't use the encrypted S. Korean parts of the internet (e.g. anything concerning money) without a key issued by the government" - unsurprisingly the government really likes that kind of power.

I think there is a pretty big Apple store in Seoul, but it can't be anything other than a prestige project.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Nationalism
by Luke McCarthy on Tue 20th Sep 2011 19:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nationalism"
Luke McCarthy Member since:
2005-07-06

So how do you run IE on an Android phone? You don't.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Nationalism
by kristoph on Tue 20th Sep 2011 05:20 UTC in reply to "Nationalism"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Yes, and conversely, should there be perceived bias in Korea against Apple, how do you think that will play at the home of Apple in the US? Which market do you think matters more?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Nationalism
by Soulbender on Tue 20th Sep 2011 14:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Nationalism"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Which market do you think matters more?


To Samsung? South Korea (and Asia).
To Apple? U.S.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Nationalism
by bogomipz on Tue 20th Sep 2011 19:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nationalism"
bogomipz Member since:
2005-07-11

That's true, no doubt.

However, if you look at it from Samsung's perspective: What is more valuable? Kicking Apple out of South Korea and getting kicked out of the US yourself, or the status quo?

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Nationalism
by mrstep on Tue 20th Sep 2011 20:40 UTC in reply to "Nationalism"
RE[2]: Nationalism
by tupp on Tue 20th Sep 2011 22:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Nationalism"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Right, Samsung, right, and you just realized this after stealing Apple's IP...

Uh... exactly what did Samsung steal from Apple?

Reply Score: 4

Samsung strikes back!
by pjafrombbay on Tue 20th Sep 2011 05:01 UTC
pjafrombbay
Member since:
2005-07-31

In a former life I (and Albert Einstein) worked as a patent examiner. I find it incredulous that Apple could have ever been awarded protection for those "napkin scribbles". So goof for Samsung to fight back! Perhaps Governments could have a good look at their intellectual property laws and remove some of the stupidity that seems to have crept in over the years. And while they are at it remove gene patents.

Regards,
Peter

Reply Score: 4

RE: Samsung strikes back!
by Neolander on Tue 20th Sep 2011 06:35 UTC in reply to "Samsung strikes back!"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Perhaps Samsung fighting back is finally the beginning of this patent apocalypse that some of us have been wishing for. The tech world going on the legal variant of a pillow fight until regulators intervene and put some reason in this patent madness.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Samsung strikes back!
by DoctorD on Tue 20th Sep 2011 19:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Samsung strikes back!"
DoctorD Member since:
2009-03-08

I too despise wasteful patent wars. In this case, from a government point of view, I consider regulation an expensive patch on a self inflicted wound. Just considerably narrow the portfolio of what patents can actually apply to in the first place.

Rather then waste money on a system handing out government granted monopolies (patents by definition) to every little spark of the imagination, limit the scope of what these can be applied to considerably, and not without a great amount of caution. Then you don't have the two-fold problem of granting monopolies, then enforcing regulation to counter the effects these monopolies produce. This saves a lot of money, on the government side of things and otherwise, but even more importantly, it obsoletes the court-oriented cluster f@#$ that has resulted from a severely permissive patent system. A system that ultimately results in more lawyers, making them richer at the expensive of the rest of us - with little real value produced.

Now frankly, I'm not sure if this is likely to happen, because of the considerable power of corporate lobbying/protectionism, but I do find it to be a much more appealing approach.

Edited 2011-09-20 19:37 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Samsung strikes back!
by mrstep on Tue 20th Sep 2011 20:44 UTC in reply to "Samsung strikes back!"
mrstep Member since:
2009-07-18

It's a design patent, not a technical patent. WTF. How complicated is it? If you copy the look of a competing product almost exactly, you can get called on it. If you start selling a professional computer tower that happens to look just like the Mac Pro, do you think that should work too? How about a Gerrari that looks just like a Ferrari?

The patent system is a broken joke, about to get even worse in the US, but that doesn't make trade dress violations part of that.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Samsung strikes back!
by tupp on Wed 21st Sep 2011 00:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Samsung strikes back!"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

After looking at this comparison between the Samsung tablet and and the Ipad, I have to conclude that you are correct in saying that Samsung copied Apple: http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/21773_Samsung_Picture_Frame_v_iP...

Oh... wait that is photo of the Ipad next to the Samsung digital image display, which was released four years before the Ipad was first announced.

Well, of course that Samsung design doesn't count, because, although the Ipad looks just like it on the front, the Samsung is just a digital picture display. If Samsung had put computer electronics inside that item, then we could safely say that Apple copied the external look of Samsung device... er... uh ...never mind.

Even the Crunchpad prototype and final design shamelessly copied the Ipad: http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-prototype/

Oh, wait... this article is dated a full six months prior to the first announcement of the Ipad.

What I really hate is when non-electronics companies try to steal a concept for a design and claim it as their own. Here is such an example, the Knight-Ridder tablet concept: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI

Such a blatant ripoff of the Ipad design should not go unpunished, and Apple should... um... Sorry, but it seems that this video was made in 1994 -- sixteen years before the Ipad was first announuced.

Wait, remind me, who is doing the copying?

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Samsung strikes back!
by mrstep on Wed 21st Sep 2011 03:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Samsung strikes back!"
mrstep Member since:
2009-07-18

" If Samsung had put computer electronics inside that item, then we could safely say "

We could then safely say that it would have had a bunch of buttons and lights on the frame prior to Apple designing tablets without them. The design rights Apple has aren't for a picture frame, it's for a tablet.

"Even the Crunchpad prototype"

Even mockups of what the unnamed-at-the-time rumored Apple tablet might look like looked like that. Which was an extension of the iPod touch / iPhone design. Remember the 'it looks like a bit iPod touch' comments? Do you remember the ones where people said 'it looks like a big Samsung media player'? Yeah, me neither.

"Sorry, but it seems that this video was made in 1994 -- sixteen years before the Ipad was first announuced."

Wow, and if Samsung made a tablet that looked like that one, there wouldn't be a problem. That one has a lumpy bit that sticks out on the backside near the top center and has a 'chin' - the thicker frame on the bottom edge. That wouldn't actually count as looking the same in terms of people confusing it with an existing product.

"Wait, remind me, who is doing the copying?"

http://deviceguru.com/files/gtab-unboxing-04.jpg

Certainly, I'll be happy to: That would still be Samsung in this case. Look at the iPad unboxing above for an example... oh, sorry, looks like that's Samsung's pad including 30-pin connector for good copying measure.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Samsung strikes back!
by tupp on Wed 21st Sep 2011 08:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Samsung strikes back!"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

If Samsung had put computer electronics inside that item, then we could safely say

We could then safely say that it would have had a bunch of buttons and lights on the frame prior to Apple designing tablets without them.

That's an interesting conclusion in light of the fact that a lot of the prior non-Apple art has rounded corners and a shiny, black, flush bezel, with no buttons/lights on the bezel. Even if one merely looks at the previously posted links of the Knight-Ridder tablet or the Samsung digital image display -- no buttons nor lights show on the bezel. Not that there is an advantage (or disadvantage) to the lack of lights/buttons on a bezel.

However, you seem imply that buttons on the bezel are a disadvantage. If so, the Ipad is an inferior design to the Knight-Ridder tablet and to the Samsung photo display, because the Ipad has one of those horrible buttons on the bezel!

The Crunchpad shown in the article seems to have a few small lights on its bezel and the later Ipad doesn't. Not sure how that would make the Ipad "a whole new tablet pardigm." At any rate, the final version of the Crunchpad (which was released before the Ipad) didn't seem to have those lights on the bezel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JooJoo_01.jpg


The design rights Apple has aren't for a picture frame, it's for a tablet.

So, it's okay that Apple took the Samsung picture frame design and merely stuffed-in different electronics, and then got "community design" protection on the copied Samsung enclosure. I see.


Even the Crunchpad prototype

Even mockups of what the unnamed-at-the-time rumored Apple tablet might look like looked like that.

Wait a second, isn't it the Apple fanboys who are constantly suggesting that what is more important than innovation is who was first to market -- not who was first to show a concept.

Even so, I don't see any links to Ipad mock-ups showing dates.

Furthermore, if Ipad mockups appeared when the final Crunchpad prototype was demoed, then, obviously Crunchpad mockups preceded those of the Ipad. Sorry, but the Crunchpad beat the Ipad to the punch.


... Which was an extension of the iPod touch / iPhone design. Remember the 'it looks like a bit iPod touch' comments?

I don't remember those comments.

Nevertheless, the Knight-Ridder tablet and the Samsung digital picture display both preceded the Ipod Touch, and they both had rounded corners and shiny, black, flush bezels.

In addition, the LG Prada had rounded corners and a shiny, black, flush bezel, and that phone was winning design awards months before the Iphone was first announced. So, the Prada (with its rounded corners and a shiny, black, flush bezel) prececed the Ipod Touch by a full year!: http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/12/15/the-lg-ke850-touchable-chocol...


Wow, and if Samsung made a tablet that looked like that one [the Knight Ridder tablet], there wouldn't be a problem. That one has a lumpy bit that sticks out on the backside near the top center and has a 'chin' - the thicker frame on the bottom edge. That wouldn't actually count as looking the same in terms of people confusing it with an existing product.

I am not sure to what is being referred as the "lumpy bit."

However, I gather that the second assertion is that a vertically non-symetrical bezel makes the Knight-Ridder tablet completely different from the Ipad, which has a symetrical bezel.

Yes. The Ipad's symetrical bezel is a brilliant, revolutionanry advancement in tablet technology. That's the kind of innovation that makes Apple so great! It's the sort of detail that makes the "Apple difference!"

Unfortunately, the Samsung digital photo display and the final released version of the Crunchpad (and about a zillion previous tablets) featured symetrical bezels.

Sorry -- Apple didn't invent symetrical bezels.


http://deviceguru.com/files/gtab-unboxing-04.jpg
Certainly, I'll be happy to: That would still be Samsung in this case. Look at the iPad unboxing above for an example... oh, sorry, looks like that's Samsung's pad including 30-pin connector for good copying measure.

Ah, yes. Another revolutionary Apple invention -- white boxes! Samsung is shamlessly copying Apple by using a white box!

Not sure what is meant by the mention of the 30-pin connector.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Samsung strikes back!
by BallmerKnowsBest on Wed 21st Sep 2011 16:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Samsung strikes back!"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Look at the iPad unboxing above for an example... oh, sorry, looks like that's Samsung's pad including 30-pin connector for good copying measure.


Remember the days when computer technology was based on open standards and interoperability was still important? But now, including a compatible connector is "copying" (though I'm honestly surprised you had the restraint to not write "stealing" instead).

And this is the "future of computing" that iFanboys are endlessly bleating about? Funny, it sounds more like the ancient history of computing. Apple's approach with the iProducts is nothing more than an early 80s-style closed, single vendor computer system - combined with an AOL-style walled-garden for software and content delivery, thoroughly sanitized and dumbed-down to appeal to the very lowest common denominator.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Samsung strikes back!
by robojerk on Thu 22nd Sep 2011 05:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Samsung strikes back!"
robojerk Member since:
2006-01-10

"Wait, remind me, who is doing the copying?"

http://deviceguru.com/files/gtab-unboxing-04.jpg

Certainly, I'll be happy to: That would still be Samsung in this case. Look at the iPad unboxing above for an example... oh, sorry, looks like that's Samsung's pad including 30-pin connector for good copying measure.

The image you linked proves the absurdity of Apple's case. It's a screen. that's it!
Is this copying Apple?
https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/etch-a-sketch-121.jpg?w...
The argument of community design is retarded.

Reply Score: 2

Biggest fun arguing with apple fan-boys
by n0b0dy on Tue 20th Sep 2011 07:09 UTC
n0b0dy
Member since:
2009-09-03

Apple did something pretty amazing, they became HUGE, RICH and well, huge again. So huge in fact that they dwarf Microsoft (aka the evil empire).

Oh, what? Wait!!! Apple are no longer the underdogs!
Apple are no longer the rebels with their shiny well designed toys. Apple fan-boys are actually storm troopers. Yes, apple is now officially the evil empire.
I know it sounds pretty Kevin Smith-ish, but you should see their faces when you lay it down like this in front of them.
It gets funnier when they start talking human engineering, UI and interfaces right before you shove Gnome3 & Unity at their faces. :-)

As for 4g etc, I sincerely couldn't care less. I tend to use wifi for data transfer much more than I use 3g.

Reply Score: 8

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06



Oh, what? Wait!!! Apple are no longer the underdogs!
Apple are no longer the rebels with their shiny well designed toys. Apple fan-boys are actually storm troopers. Yes, apple is now officially the evil empire.


That is why my relationship with Apple is a love-hate one.
While I can't think of a laptop better than my MacBook Pro (great hardware + a fine OS), I wish that Mac prices (especially upgrades) were more reasonable, and that they gave up this patents madness.

Reply Score: 4

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

That link always seems funny to me, since the ultrabook coming from Lenovo next month will be USD 800.

Reply Score: 5

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

The Samsung Apple patent fight is nothing


It's way too early to tell.

, it's Oracle versus Google that is the big match and it looks like Oracle might win.


Oracle IS going to win. They not only have a case but they have a smoking gun (emails) which proves WILLFUL violation of Oracle's patents. I wouldn't be surprised if Oracle gets a $15 royalty per Android device sold. Which pretty much eliminates the price advantage that Android enjoyed, and allows other IHVs to diversify away from Google-Motorola to Windows Phone 7, etc.

Edited 2011-09-21 01:58 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Let's put it simply : take someone who wants a decent $500 laptop for office work and web browsing. He can buy it from Acer, Asus, etc... He can't buy it from Apple. Why ? Because Apple only make high-end laptops. Why ? Because they make more money this way. Why ? Because Macs have a monopoly on a number of things so people will buy their expensive laptops even if they actually wanted something less expensive.

Now, from the point of view of those who just wants an Apple laptop because they have a cool OS, it just means that yes, Apple hardware is ridiculously expensive.

Reply Score: 3

jackeebleu Member since:
2006-01-26

Upgrades? What upgrades? You mean the $30 upgrade cost for Lion? That? You want that cheaper? Really?

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

No, I mean hardware upgrades when you buy a Mac. Configure a Mac Pro and see for yourself.

Reply Score: 2

mrstep Member since:
2009-07-18

Of all the machines to pick on upgrade prices, you pick the Mac Pro? It's the ONE machine they have that is totally meant to be upgraded by the end user.

I've slapped 4 drives in, 24GB of RAM, and extra DVD burner, an eSATA card... it's MEANT to be opened up and reconfigured. If you don't want to do it, fine, pay Apple's prices, but that's really just not the machine to pick as an example.

To be fair, you're usually better off buying RAM or drives from someone other than the large manufacturer anyway if you're looking for the lowest price on upgrades, whether you're talking Apple or Dell or whoever.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Of all the machines to pick on upgrade prices, you pick the Mac Pro? It's the ONE machine they have that is totally meant to be upgraded by the end user.


Suggest me what to do if you want a better CPU. Their cheapest upgrade, quad-core, from 2,8 GHz to 3,2 GHz costs 403 Euro.

Reply Score: 2

On the hardware side...
by bitwelder on Tue 20th Sep 2011 07:23 UTC
bitwelder
Member since:
2010-04-27

As Apple is also a rather big customer for Samsung chips and components, I wonder if/when/how Samsung would start to pull the strings from the hardware side.

Reply Score: 4

RE: On the hardware side...
by cyrilleberger on Tue 20th Sep 2011 08:12 UTC in reply to "On the hardware side..."
cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

And pay billions to apple in damage ? Since it is unlikely that the contract contains a compensation clause in case one of the side is breaking the contract.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: On the hardware side...
by sgtrock on Tue 20th Sep 2011 12:56 UTC in reply to "RE: On the hardware side..."
sgtrock Member since:
2011-05-13

So, what is Apple going to do for a supplier when the current contract runs out? Who do they go to that has Samsung's R&D and manufacturing muscle?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: On the hardware side...
by renox on Tue 20th Sep 2011 14:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: On the hardware side..."
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

So, what is Apple going to do for a supplier when the current contract runs out? Who do they go to that has Samsung's R&D and manufacturing muscle?


Well for the CPUs, they're going to also use TSMC(*), for the other components, I don't know, they'll probably still use Samsung for a while: it's co-opetition time after all..

*:
http://9to5mac.com/2011/09/15/digitimes-tsmc-confirmed-as-apples-ne...

Reply Score: 2

RE: On the hardware side...
by umad on Tue 20th Sep 2011 16:50 UTC in reply to "On the hardware side..."
umad Member since:
2011-08-18

As Apple is also a rather big customer for Samsung chips and components, I wonder if/when/how Samsung would start to pull the strings from the hardware side.


Apple Apparently Ditched Samsung for TSMC Chip Fabrication

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/apple_apparently_ditches_sam...

Reply Score: 1

train wreck
by Gone fishing on Tue 20th Sep 2011 18:07 UTC
Gone fishing
Member since:
2006-02-22

The world economy is more than fragile - Europe and the US have huge sovereign debt problems. Innovation leading to sustainable growth is what's needed.

But no we are going to stifle innovation - if possible make the courts declare it illegal, waste billions on buying up bogus IP and billions more in court cases. Prevent growth by if possible by legally preventing products being sold.

This is a slow train wreck - we will be lucky if our grand children don't learn about the great depression of 2015.

Edit Further thought:

The lesson they may learn could be, the old western powers tried to prevent the emergence of the new eastern trading powers by trying to make trade and innovation illegal or illegitimately using IP to tax that trade. This lead to a depression in which the western economies shrank and became increasingly less important to the world economy; the depression finally ended when the eastern trading powers unilaterally ignored western IP and traded and innovated their way back to prosperity.

Edited 2011-09-20 18:20 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: train wreck
by mrstep on Wed 21st Sep 2011 02:40 UTC in reply to "train wreck"
mrstep Member since:
2009-07-18

The lesson may be that the Western countries that innovated allowed others to copy their products and use what was essentially slave labor to undercut and hollow out their own economies, all while their political leaders took bribes to keep their trade agreements in place. Never wanting to be outdone, the eastern powers were brought down in a war fought between India and China purportedly over water resources that was secretly planned in advance to reduce the huge surplus of males in their populations due to their policies of turning a blind eye to female infanticide.

Reply Score: 1

The future of patents
by Luke McCarthy on Tue 20th Sep 2011 19:45 UTC
Luke McCarthy
Member since:
2005-07-06

Nobody is allowed to make anything.

Reply Score: 1

RE: The future of patents
by pjafrombbay on Wed 21st Sep 2011 03:56 UTC in reply to "The future of patents"
pjafrombbay Member since:
2005-07-31

Luke McCarthy said: Nobody is allowed to make anything.

Informative comment - thanks for participating, it makes us all much better informed.

Peter

Edited 2011-09-21 03:58 UTC

Reply Score: 1

¿Fun Times?
by Rosc0 on Tue 20th Sep 2011 20:28 UTC
Rosc0
Member since:
2008-01-09

I really think this are very sad times.
You may see it as an entertainment, but technology competition is not as fast as it may be due to this lawyers bussines

Reply Score: 2

Apple fanboys
by twitterfire on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 20:40 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

If you didn't think until now that Apple fanboys are a bunch of brainwashed [insert swear words here], just take a look at this sample of cleverness coming from an Apple fanboy who commented on macobserver.com:


Is there any doubt that Apple will move as much business as possible from Samsung, after Samsung has decided to compete against Apple is its two of its main lines of business? Even if Samsung isn’t infringing on Apple’s IP, which it may very well be doing, neither Samsung or anyone else can reasonably expect Apple to do any more business with Samsung than is absolutely necessary. Certainly, Samsung, if there is any wisdom in its management, must have expected that Samsung’s move to compete with Apple’s iPad and iPhone with Android-based tablets and smartphones would result in losing the bulk, if not eventually all, of Apple’s $7 billion a year in orders.

So Samsung must be expecting that the profits that it will get from Android devices will not only replace but exceed the profits that it received from selling components to Apple. However, Samsung’s treachery may receive its just deserts, because (1) their tablet business hasn’t been very successful, and Apple’s infringement suits threaten what little success, if success it can be called, Samsung has had with tablets, and (2) Google’s purchase of Motorola Mobility (Moto) threatens that all other Android OEMs, including Samsung, will be second class citizens, who won’t be able to fully compete against the very company, Google/Moto, that is supplying Android, their mobile OS.

And that second point is perhaps already causing Samsung to regret its decision to rely on Android to compete against what had been its biggest and best customer, Apple Inc. Though all of the Android OEMs dutifully professed support for Google’s decision to purchase Moto, it has been reported they all, especially Samsung, have taken steps to at least hedge their bet on Android, if not taken steps to outright diversify to other mobile operating systems and thereby diminish their reliance on Android.

So if the infringement suits facing Android or Google’s treachery with Moto cause the impairment of Samsung’s Android business, it is prepared or is preparing to have a mobile device business without Android. But that business, certainly is unlikely to be as profitable as the business that Samsung had with Apple.


And the rest of comments on macobserver.com regarding Apple vs Samsung "articles" are of the same type.

Edited 2011-09-23 20:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2