Seeking Alpha

Apple's (AAPL) California battle with Samsung (SSNLF.PK) is turning up reams of data about the...

Apple's (AAPL) California battle with Samsung (SSNLF.PK) is turning up reams of data about the companies' U.S. sales. An Apple document states 19M iPhones were solid in the U.S. in 1H (31% of total sales), along with 10.2M iPads (35% of total). Meanwhile, 1H U.S. sales of Samsung smartphones deemed by Apple to be infringing its IP amounted to 4.5M. Also: Samsung claims to have sold just 37K Galaxy Tab units in the U.S. in Q2. (Galaxy S document)
Comments (16)
  • jblau
    , contributor
    Comments (44) | Send Message
    This is an absurd law suit. All Apple wants to do is have a monoply. The phones do not look alike at all. All smart phones look somewhat alike. It is how they work that counts and I tried both. So many features are standard on all phones and there are a lot of differences. It is a waste of time and money. Why don't they just settle this case and lets move on. I remember all the fuss when the government went after Microsoft. That was another waste of time. These companies should just agreee to share the stuff and move on. It is funny that Apple use a lot of Samsung stuff that they want. It is just that Apple wants it all. I am buying a Samsung.
    10 Aug 2012, 03:28 PM Reply Like
  • gensearch2
    , contributor
    Comments (1459) | Send Message
    The purpose of patents is to explicitly establish a monopoly.


    Look at "white out". That is patented. Jersey barriers.


    I looked up flip phones patents ... The patent went on sale for $70k a few years ago.


    For this trial, the validity of Apple's patents is not in question. The question is whether Samsung stole Apple's IP. If you want to give your IP away that's your choice.


    Buy a Samsung.
    10 Aug 2012, 04:51 PM Reply Like
  • srtmaster
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
    I am not a big phone person but I am getting the Samsung also. The Iphone adapts to all your other Apple devices (as is planned by Apple) but I don't want a whole long list of Apple devices as I am a PC type of guy.
    11 Aug 2012, 03:39 PM Reply Like
  • gensearch2
    , contributor
    Comments (1459) | Send Message
    And that's perfectly fine. But that has nothing to do with IP. Apple is building a ecosystem for people to buy into. No one requires you to buy into an ecosystem.


    If you're not a big phone person, I can't see why you would even buy a smartphone at all. Get a Tracphone and save yourself a bunch of coin. You won't have to concern yourself with "apps", OS updates, 3G, 4G LTE, or any of the other side issues of smartphones. Your cell bill will be a fraction of what smartphone users pay.
    12 Aug 2012, 09:27 AM Reply Like
  • TRHanson
    , contributor
    Comments (168) | Send Message
    I agree, if you are not really into the phone scene, you are far better off going with a cheap alternative. Personally, I didn't really care much about a smart phone until I got one (company issued blackberry :sadface:). Now, I think if I'd need to buy one if I ever switched employers. But if you don't use a lot of data and Android works for you, I have a couple friends who got a "Straight Talk" smart phone for $40 per month, and they are satisfied with them.
    13 Aug 2012, 02:39 PM Reply Like
  • aperture1
    , contributor
    Comments (190) | Send Message
    Are you guys sayings that there should be no patent protections? Or no patents at all? Just imagine what it would be like if there were none. No innovation!
    10 Aug 2012, 06:32 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
    Is this a feeling you have or do you have some data to present?


    From what I understand there's been plenty of innovation in fields without patents, and that the economic impact of patents in all fields outside of medicine is overall negative.
    11 Aug 2012, 02:36 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message
    And more to the point, how do you feel about Apple stealing the GUI from Xerox, their touch interaction paradigm from Jeff Han, their OS having code from BSD in it, etc.


    These are all "innovations" I'm sure you credit them for which would not exist if they did not copy from those works.


    The only thing Apple deserves a patent on is stealing the work of others while convincing people they're innovators and not thieves.


    They've always been a marketing and PR company first, products second. The marketing and PR are what convince you otherwise.
    11 Aug 2012, 10:08 PM Reply Like
  • gensearch2
    , contributor
    Comments (1459) | Send Message
    Both Jobs and Gates acknowledge that they "stole" from Xerox. To be more accurate, the management at Xerox gave the stuff away. They also gave away what became Cisco.


    But neither Apple or MSFT patented what was in the public domain. And that is the issue here. Whether you happen to think that Apple's patents are invalid is immaterial. They are deemed legally valid and their "property" until proven otherwise.


    I might think the patents/innovation covering whiteout and Jersey barriers are ridiculous. I might think the patent covering "one click buying" by Amazon is ridiculous. I might think the patents covering flip phones is ridiculous and every one of them should be declared invalid. But it doesn't matter. According to the law, they are valid patents.
    12 Aug 2012, 09:15 AM Reply Like
  • gensearch2
    , contributor
    Comments (1459) | Send Message


    Is that your feeling or do you have some data to present?
    12 Aug 2012, 09:28 AM Reply Like
  • gensearch2
    , contributor
    Comments (1459) | Send Message


    Your comment isn't to the point. The point is whether there should be patents. Your comment has nothing to do with that.


    In Article I, section 8, the U.S. Constitution:


    Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
    12 Aug 2012, 09:31 AM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (583) | Send Message


    My comment has a world to do with it. If Xerox fought as hard as Apple does in court, there would be no Windows, Mac, iPhone, Amiga, etc, etc.


    The commenter I was responding to was arguing that without strong patents Apple wouldn't be encouraged to innovate.


    Certainly everyone Apple has stolen tech from felt encouraged to develop their innovations regardless.


    Imagine multi-touch, scrollbars, GUIs, the computer mouse, the design of the LG Prada, etc, all being as heavily patented and defended in court the way Apple does. There would be no iPhone, period.


    So how can we say that without patents and aggressive litigation there is no innovation, because the lack of this is what allowed for this "innovation" in the first place.
    15 Aug 2012, 04:57 PM Reply Like
  • suomimama
    , contributor
    Comments (63) | Send Message
    AAPL ripped off of NOK patents for years and then lost in court. AAPL has always had the philosophy that they can just take whatever they want - including the name of the company and the trademarked iPhone name. Now AAPL is paying royalties to NOK.
    10 Aug 2012, 09:43 PM Reply Like
  • rubicon59
    , contributor
    Comments (1382) | Send Message
    One can violate patents intentionally or inadvertently.


    When you purposely copy somebody, the violations tend to be intentional.


    There should be a verdict within 2 weeks. Will be a seismic event.
    11 Aug 2012, 01:03 AM Reply Like
  • zenstar666
    , contributor
    Comments (63) | Send Message
    A violation or infringement of a patent, even if initially inadvertent, becomes intentional or willful when the infringer is placed on notice of the existence of the patent by the patent owner, after which continued infringement is subject to treble or triple damages if the court decides against the infringer.
    Notice can be actual notice, issued by the lawyer for the patent owner, or constructive notice, by the marking of the patent number on the patented product.
    If the validity of AAPL's patents is not in issue, then the court/jury only has to decide whether or not Samsung infringed any of them and the amount of monetary damages suffered by AAPL as a result of the infringement. This amount will be tripled if the infringement is found to be willful.
    12 Aug 2012, 08:52 AM Reply Like
  • gensearch2
    , contributor
    Comments (1459) | Send Message
    You don't believe in trademarks?


    The concept of patents is hardly foreign to Samsung. Here's a list of the largest holders of patents in the US as of 2010.




    5866 patents to IBM, headquartered in Armonk, New York
    4518 patents to Samsung Electronics Co., headquartered in Suwon, Korea
    3086 patents to Microsoft Corporation, headquartered in Redmond, Washington,
    2551 patents to Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, headquartered in Tokyo, Japan
    2443 patents to Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., headquartered in Kadoma, Osaka, Japan
    2212 patents to Toshiba Corporation, headquartered in Tokyo, Japan
    2130 patents to Sony Corporation, headquartered in Tokyo, Japan
    1652 patents to Intel Corporation, headquartered in Santa Clara, California
    1488 patents to LG ELECTRONICS INC., headquartered in Seoul, Korea
    1480 patents to Hewlett-Packard, headquartered in Palo Alto, California



    Apple isn't even on the list and Samsung holds the #2 slot.
    12 Aug 2012, 09:35 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio: