Market Currents
Apple (AAPL) has until tomorrow to outline which Samsung devices it wants to ban from being sold...
-
Sunday, August 26, 2012, 3:44 AM ETApple (AAPL) has until tomorrow to outline which Samsung devices it wants to ban from being sold in the U.S. following the U.S. company's massive patent win. A hearing is provisionally set for Sept. 20. Following the verdict, Samsung (SSNLF.PK), might need to postpone introducing new devices so that it can make design changes. Meanwhile, the WSJ, Bloomberg (I,II) and Reuters provide accounts of jury's deliberations.
Other date
TECH ETFs IN FOCUS
Latest Tech Articles
This news story has 54 comments:
because of your comments i am going out and buying android.
you change my mind in the opposite direction.
thanks!
A random comment on a thead from someone I don't know from Adam having that much influence on my lasting (2yr) purchasing decisions would have me questioning myself....
If I trash Koreans, will you buy a Hyundai?
It takes years to develop the technology that Samsung stole in months.
Best wishes to Samsung and other companies trying to compete with Apple. Next up on the Apple lawsuit tour: Google
Even after the $1B damage award, Samsung is still in a far better position today than they would be had they not stolen Apple's IP.
This will be one of many grounds for appeal.
First, the foreman said they wanted to "send a message." That doesn't mean they punished Samsung. http://bit.ly/NPW6Xn
Second, as you state, it's not the jury's responsibility to punish, but, if the jury finds the infringement willful, the *judge* has the right to punish the infringer by tripling the damages. http://bit.ly/OjWbxs
Treble damages are entirely appropriate in this situation.
As for what the judge may or may not do, I never brought that up in my comment so I've no idea what you're trying to do in bringing it into the discussion.
The multi-touch feature can't be worked around and worst case after appeals will be licensed as a industry standard patent. But even this feature can be invalidated as there have been many sci-fi movies such as Minority Report that feature similar gestures.
Android is not going anywhere. Android users will continue to buy the best Android device on the market.
Except surveys show this is not true. Android does not have nearly the customer loyalty that iOS has. I expect many Android users will be jumping ship to Windows and iOS. Hardly anyone will jump the other way -- Windows because its market share is so small and iOS because its users are so loyal. Android looks to be caught in a squeeze.
- A person who happily owned a nokia n900 until very recently.
Tell your RIM that they don't exist in the tech ethos until they actually get a f***in phone out...Its been 5 years since the iPhone and they are finally getting a modern smartphone out, what, next year? Maybe next year, they might be thought about when we are talking smartphones....
http://bit.ly/On7457
Only 2 % of Blackberry users in this survey intend to buy another. 48% of Android users intend to stick with Android, and 77% of iPhone users plan to stick with Apple. That does not bode well for RIM.
That is really bad for BB10...which I think teeters on current users....I don't expect BB10 to be grabbing sales from Android and iPhone....very grimm....
Sorry Slick...kinda cranky....tired of too many RIM fanatics going off when I try to say the truth....
Is the company providing the devices and data plans, and what industry are you in?
I also have held the opinion that companies more inclined towards security and securing their data would likely stick with RIM over the alternatives, so I additionally find it interesting your company, which is in an industry I suspect values its security highly, is migrating away.
If they are stuck with Samsung Austin, one could imagine that Samsung could mysteriously have a terrible yield problem and the "A" chip flow could turn into a trickle.
Is Apple dumb enough to fire this commercial ICBM (lawsuit) at Samsung without having another supplier lined up? I don't think so. Think Intel.
FYI, Paul Ottelini in NOT scheduled to speak at the Intel Developer Forum Sep 11-13. I can't find where that has ever happened before. Also remember that the rumored introduction date for the iPhone 5 is Sep 12. Just maybe an Ottelini appearance at the Apple announcement trumps his speech at the IDF. We've seen it before on the change from Power PC chip to x86 back in 2006. Ottelini was on-stage with Steve Jobs for that little announcement.
Key question: If Intel is announced as the new Apple "A" chip supplier, does the Intel stock add $10 or $20 on the very next day of trading?
There's nothing illegal about Samsung not supplying chips to Apple. They're not the only supplier available, so there's no antitrust potential. It'd just be Samsung not supplying to Apple, as is any company's legal right I would hope.
Would it be good for Samsung in financial terms? That I don't know.
Well, see that is the point of a contract. You don't, in fact, have a "legal right" to violate a contract. In fact that is what a contract is -- a legally binding agreement.
You don't see breech of contract as being that big? There may well be specific penalties built into the contract, but even if not, the penalties for breech of contract can be severe. If Apple shows that is was done economic harm by the breech (which would be easy to do) the penalties could be very stiff indeed.
But this is all silliness, because there is no way that Samsung will intentionally fail to meet the terms of their contract. In the first place, it is a different division of the company entirely, and in the second place, they make a lot of money from those deals. They would not add to the harm done by the verdict by taking more money out of their own pocket.
You see no problem? Well perhaps Apple competitors should bribe iPhone suppliers to have some carefully timed "accidents" in their factories around now, easily bottle-necking what is Apple's largest launch ever...
Industry and markets require rules to operate....otherwise it becomes a free for all, with the most brutal and malicious entities winning....why we don't set up too many businesses in gang ruled Somalia...
you don't value structure and regulation much? I know some neighborhood projects where the cops rarely bother with already...you might enjoy a weekend over there...try not to look anyone in the eye though, you may lose a body part....
Big wallets just allow them to play by a more favorable set of rules than the rest of us....
It'd be a financial hit to Samsung, and a supply hit to Apple, but if the contract was done right by Samsung then Samsung wouldn't lose any more than the penalties.
I also don't think Samsung will do it.
You need to address your comments, I can't tell who you are saying what to....
"As for the rest of your ranting, I've no idea what you're on about."
Look, I thought that I would be a huge legal problem if, like the poster before me said, Samsung mysteriously had an iPhone supply problem.....I joked around about popcorn to watch the fireworks....and you came in saying that it is Samsung's right...that sounds ridiculous....and you're challenging what I think is obvious....
.....now it sounds like your story has changed....
You dislike the government regulation, right? Well, some of the places where I do some work are, well, "hairy" places....a good opportunity for you to see what inadequate enforcement of rules can do for your personal safety....most guys talking like you grew up where they were protected and takes it for granted....you need to see what lord of the flies for adults looks like.....
The treading has always worked this way, notice we tend to address our comments, unless it is very obvious, or our comment ends up right next to who we are responding to. So, 1st comment for DM, 2nd comment for me, right?
This is a contract between two parties. In any good contract there are clauses about non-delivery. Clauses both parties should understand and would have agreed upon. That was my point. There would be no fireworks, even if it went to court. One party would have failed to deliver. It's pretty cut and dry.
So, 1st comment for DM, 2nd comment for me, right?
yes.
You said it is up to Samsung who they sell to....
Do whatever they like, yeah right....if you think it would just be a contract fine...think again....
I still don't think it's likely to happen. I'm just not understanding your line of thinking in any way.
I'm not a lawyer, so I am not aware of how to find precidents for that situation....
My thought is that compensatory damages for breach of contract that undermines the biggest product launch of the biggest company would be unimaginable.....creating shockwaves that would dwarf the current legal wrangling....particularly if it was found intentional...given a guilty finding in sabotaging Apple, I wonder if Samsung would even survive the consequences....
Those are my assumptions...but I think they are correct....It would not be a minor conflict....
I don't think they would be that stupid to try it....I don't think so either....
...in the first place, you should have left my comment alone, intended as a joke...
...but your suggestion that Samsung can sell how it pleases without regard for the impact that would have, seemed absurd to me....I wasn't saying anything that should have been surprising or controversial....I think such an event would be the headline news for days....
....what should have been left alone in the first place, let's just drop it....
Samsung will become the best middle-upper hardware supplier but gradually becomes a commodity type business with lower anbd lower margins as the lower end manufacturers pressure it from below, then the question becomes, "Do you want a cheap smart phone? Or do you want to pay a little more and get a great one? And if you want the great one why not pay a little more for an Apple that gives you great cachet, bling and additional product quality and features?" Then, if you want cheap, the samsung looks too expensive, and it you want the best, the Samsung is less attractive than the Apple, especially as they are now banned from using attractive features they ripped from Apple.
So while most people cannot afford an Apple, those who can will buy one, and those who almost can will aspire to one, and everyone else will choose from the variety of cheap models where a Nokia might do better than a Samsung. So basically, samsung is not in an enviable position and I would avoid the stock. Meanwhile, Apple just added great value to its brand and leverage and was already a cheap stock so now it is even cheaper, ironcially also being the biggest market cap in the world. But no reason to stop here? Why not Apple at $1000 now? Any nay-sayers have any valid reasons? I doubt it now. My friend who is an Apple naysayer Galaxy owner (also a CEO and very stock savvy) has been telling me Samsung had the advantage. Well not anymore. All that just changed dramatically, aqnde it was not even true to begin with pre-verdict.
Trade dress has always been patentable.