Seeking Alpha

Apple (AAPL) has until tomorrow to outline which Samsung devices it wants to ban from being sold...

Apple (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.
Comments (54)
  • This will immensely boost coming iphone5 sales as Samsung phones are now tarnished with the bad reputation of illegal steals, no matter how and what Samsung will appeal next. In fact, the more Samsung fights next, the more resentment it will invoke from truthful consumers. Samsung will be perceived as a villian who simply wants evil to prevail.
    26 Aug 2012, 09:35 AM Reply Like
  • no not really. they will just make changes. i do not know anyone who will still not buy samsung or any android.


    because of your comments i am going out and buying android.


    you change my mind in the opposite direction.


    26 Aug 2012, 09:40 PM Reply Like
  • That is interesting, I don't really like locking myself into a device unless I really like it, and to change platform, even more so....


    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?
    26 Aug 2012, 10:30 PM Reply Like
  • It's better for Samsung now just to stop fighting in this case, admit its violations, keep a low profile and start to innovate on its own for its own long term good.
    26 Aug 2012, 09:39 AM Reply Like
  • Will taking the Lance Armstrong approach work for Samsung?


    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
    26 Aug 2012, 10:29 AM Reply Like
  • My sincere hope is that Judge Koh triples the damages based on the understanding that Samsung's current market position was derived from their prior IP theft.


    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.
    26 Aug 2012, 04:21 PM Reply Like
  • The jury were expressly forbidden from punishing Samsung in the instructions given to them, and they were only to compensate for losses. The jury foreman has since said they imposed fees to punish Samsung.


    This will be one of many grounds for appeal.
    26 Aug 2012, 05:42 PM Reply Like
  • Nice comment! You proved you have absolutely no understanding of the facts.


    First, the foreman said they wanted to "send a message." That doesn't mean they punished Samsung.


    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.


    Treble damages are entirely appropriate in this situation.
    26 Aug 2012, 06:36 PM Reply Like
  • I thought the infringements are just design elements, not technology.
    26 Aug 2012, 09:27 PM Reply Like
  • You're right, I'm confused. Mainly about what sending a message might otherwise mean...


    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.
    27 Aug 2012, 03:00 AM Reply Like
  • I disagree that this verdict will boost iphone sales. Android users LOVE Android. Just as iOS users love iOS. Jelly Bean has already worked around some of the complaints such as the Bounce Back or Rubber Banding. The look and feel of the Android operating system has evolved so much that it no longer resembles iOS. It actually puts iOS to shame. iOS is just evolving too slowly.


    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.
    26 Aug 2012, 10:48 AM Reply Like
  • "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.
    26 Aug 2012, 01:58 PM Reply Like
  • I find it facinating that no one has mentioned that this could be huge for Nokia's WP8 coming out next couple months. If people don't get the phone they wanted from Samsung its possible they could look for alternatives, such as the Nokias.
    26 Aug 2012, 10:51 AM Reply Like
  • I agree WP8 was already set to make some noise. This can only help.
    26 Aug 2012, 01:59 PM Reply Like
  • Nokia needs to actually release competitive devices to be a factor. We haven't seen that. This won't really help them much. They're still way behind in the smartphone market right now.


    - A person who happily owned a nokia n900 until very recently.
    26 Aug 2012, 05:44 PM Reply Like
  • Or BB10 out in January. Amazing how you folks don't mention RIM - as if they don't exist. 80 million subs. What hurts Android is good for MSFT and RIM. Also, many people are getting tired of iphoneX. No, it's not like Apple has anything to worry about, but the others can nibble at the edges. I think 2013 will be the year that both MSFT/NOK *and* RIM increase marketshare. I don't think there will be a "huge" change, but I think you'll see a change in trend.
    26 Aug 2012, 11:52 PM Reply Like
  • Hey Slick,
    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....
    27 Aug 2012, 12:00 AM Reply Like
  • RIM still exists. But not for much longer.



    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.
    27 Aug 2012, 12:26 AM Reply Like
  • 2% of their current low market share? They will sell about as well as the first PlayBook then...


    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....
    27 Aug 2012, 04:45 AM Reply Like
  • Our entire company is switching from BB this month. No trust that they will be around next year. We have a choice of Iphone or droid. 80% have chosen Iphone so far......
    27 Aug 2012, 08:55 AM Reply Like
  • Two questions Kistyk:


    Is the company providing the devices and data plans, and what industry are you in?
    27 Aug 2012, 09:07 AM Reply Like
  • Yes, the company is buying the device and the service, hpowever, they are also looking at BYOD. Sales force is testing the Ipad also. This will eventually trickle down the the rest of the company. The company is in specialty chemicals.
    27 Aug 2012, 01:49 PM Reply Like
  • I have been of the opinion BYOD has been more important in the migration away from RIM than when the company provides the device/plan, so this is interesting stuff to me.


    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.
    27 Aug 2012, 02:09 PM Reply Like
  • kmi - You are correct, our company highly values the security of it's intellectual property. I've heard the Iphone is not as secure as the BB, which suprised me since Apple comands it's own OS. That is why I was also surprised that the company offered us the Iphone. I'm sure there is a reason why ios is not considered as secure, but not sure I've ever heard it. Is it possible my company found a way to make it secure (just guessing here as I'm clueless when it comes to operating systems)?
    28 Aug 2012, 10:45 AM Reply Like
  • Great Job Apple. Samsung has been shamelessly copying not only Apple's devices but whole Apple business model. They are even copying Apple Retail Stores as well.
    26 Aug 2012, 11:24 AM Reply Like
  • Actually, I have been using a Google Android phone and am very disappointed. It is very spotty in ternms of online access. It pocket calls constantly even ex girlfriends I haven't spoken to in a year and dont want to think I am calling. Yesterday, I took it nout of my pocket and it was playing some video I never ordered up. And it forces me to keep logging in my gmail access code and then forgets it and makes me do it again and again, and sometimes it doesn't work at all. I dont know if Apple phones also do this, but it has been a very annoying experience. I dont want my smart phone linked to Google anymore, and the Android phone seems to do whatever it wants when it wants and does not let me command it.
    26 Aug 2012, 11:25 AM Reply Like
  • The iPhone will delight you in this regards, because it let you control the phone precisely, not the other way around.
    26 Aug 2012, 02:04 PM Reply Like
  • I've never once had any of this. Have you had any kind of screen lock on?
    26 Aug 2012, 05:45 PM Reply Like
  • bjnflicks Goog is working on self driving car hope it doesn't take you to your x's houses.... lol....
    27 Aug 2012, 12:08 AM Reply Like
  • Sure hope that Apple has another foundry source for those "A" chips that are essential to the iPhone, iPad, iPod and a few other products that make up about 80% of apple's revenue.
    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?
    26 Aug 2012, 11:28 AM Reply Like
  • Yeah, that would be a sight to see...."Samsung sabatoges Apple's supply"....this little patent issue would be nothing in comparison to the legal explosion that would cause....I want to know early so I can have my popcorn ready and buttered for that show....instead of spanked, Samsung will get drawn and quartered....
    26 Aug 2012, 05:50 PM Reply Like
  • What would be the legal explosion? Sure, failure to meet contract conditions could be one, but I don't see that being all that big.


    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.
    26 Aug 2012, 06:03 PM Reply Like
  • "It'd just be Samsung not supplying to Apple, as is any company's legal right I would hope."


    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.
    26 Aug 2012, 06:16 PM Reply Like
  • @losing paper
    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 might enjoy a weekend over there...try not to look anyone in the eye though, you may lose a body part....
    26 Aug 2012, 06:45 PM Reply Like
  • there are few rules unless you have a big wallet. fortunately for apple, they have a big wallet.
    26 Aug 2012, 09:45 PM Reply Like
  • There are plenty of rules everywhere....recall that I said don't look them in the eye?


    Big wallets just allow them to play by a more favorable set of rules than the rest of us....
    26 Aug 2012, 11:33 PM Reply Like
  • You made the point I was making. The penalties would be known to samsung in advance, and there'd be no reason for them to fight them as they'd clearly be in the wrong with breaching the contract and that's why it wouldn't be all that big of a deal.


    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.
    27 Aug 2012, 03:08 AM Reply Like
  • What are you talking about? This is why they have contracts. If Samsung were to do it, not that I think they would, then they'd hit the penalty clauses in their contracts. As for the rest of your ranting, I've no idea what you're on about.
    27 Aug 2012, 03:11 AM Reply Like
  • @Losing Paper
    You need to address your comments, I can't tell who you are saying what to....
    27 Aug 2012, 03:43 AM Reply Like
  • The second comment was for you Ronin. SA's threading is a bit broken.
    27 Aug 2012, 11:16 AM Reply Like
  • @losing paper
    "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....

  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 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?
    27 Aug 2012, 01:24 PM Reply Like
  • Ronin: Eh? How does government regulation even come into this? That's why I said I had no idea what you're on about when you started talking about Somalia and now with the Lord of the Flies nonsense.


    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?
    27 Aug 2012, 02:39 PM Reply Like
  • What? You came in asking me what explosion? I am telling you that it would be a legal conflagration should Samsung try to fake a supply problem to damage Apple's release....


    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....
    27 Aug 2012, 02:55 PM Reply Like
  • What law would be broken that it would be anything more than a contract case?


    I still don't think it's likely to happen. I'm just not understanding your line of thinking in any way.
    27 Aug 2012, 03:25 PM Reply Like
  • I suppose that I don't expect you to understand...I read some of your previous discussions before...your name is, well, distinctive...


    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....
    28 Aug 2012, 05:11 AM Reply Like
  • I like how, instead of answering the question, you try to imply that my expectation that it would just be a contract suit is somehow wrong because of something I've said in the past, like that's somehow a factor. That's a very cheap shot.
    28 Aug 2012, 11:26 AM Reply Like
  • Look, there is no point in continuing....i did answer, I said I don't know how to search for that specific info.

  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....
    28 Aug 2012, 12:36 PM Reply Like
  • My prediction now post Samsung verdict is that Apple will secure its rule more and more of the high margin upper echelon of the smart phone market, merge this with a mini iPad and larger Pad, then wrap it all up in a bow with extreme customer brand loyalty. The brand loyalty is something no other company has and it is a key to Apple success along with the fact it owns its own software and ecosystem. All huge advantages.


    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.
    26 Aug 2012, 11:36 AM Reply Like
  • I know Apple lovers will hate this comment, but banning devices isn't the best outcome at all. I agree Samsung and Google should be punished, but I think the liability should be limited to a fine or a license to Apple the power to ban devices can give to the company too much power, and ultimately creating the same dominance Microsoft had in the PC market which wasn't very beneficial to the market and consumers in the long term. I believe Apple wouldn't feel pressured to innovate as much if Android wasn't around and the benefits wouldn't be spread in the market as much as it's now. I have a lot of Apple products but they focus too much in the higher end segment and the economic benefits of spreading smartphones to as much people as possible are much higher than any value created only to Apple's shareholders.
    26 Aug 2012, 09:18 PM Reply Like
  • There is a good reason people opt to purchase more expensive items it is called a test drive..........triple stitched leather interiors four hundred plus horsepower , paint like glass....elegant in cars this seems to apply to aapl products ..... best in class... If you can afford to buy it and are in the market looking to buy... don't be sorry you didn't..... .
    26 Aug 2012, 11:22 PM Reply Like
  • Yes, but other car makers should be allowed to offer leather seats without fear of a $1B judgment.
    27 Aug 2012, 06:56 AM Reply Like
  • unless the design was patented
    27 Aug 2012, 12:49 PM Reply Like
  • Perhaps we should make every fast food business that looks anything like McDonalds close. A San Jose jury 'considered' 700 questions in 21 hours (< 2 min/question) to reach a verdict. I expect juries in a murder case to understand the issues, but not in a patent case. If you make "look and feel" patentable, you will kill innovation and create monopolies. The problem with the patent system already is that getting a patent is trivial. The buck has been passed to the courts who are not qualified to decide between differences and innovation.
    27 Aug 2012, 06:49 AM Reply Like
  • Reid3844, if you are driving up to a restaurant and you see two golden arches, you can be darned sure it is a McDonalds. If it has two arches that are rounded slightly differently and may be just a shade of yellow different from what you expect... Well you can imagine what McDonalds' lawyers would say about that. So your example is actually an excellent illustration of trade dress.


    Trade dress has always been patentable.
    27 Aug 2012, 01:58 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)