Samsung v. Apple

[kevinp]

Originally Posted by frahse

My guess is that the Samsung price is fair.

My guess is that they're just trying to recoup some of their legal fees and fines instilled by US court system.

[holymadness]

My guess is that there is something fishy about this story. If Apple and Samsung have a contract that is valid until 2014, there is no way Samsung can unilaterally impose a 20% price increase after its signing to get revenge for patent wars, or what have you. Either the price increase (or a clause permitting it under certain conditions) was already stipulated in the contract, or this is simply untrue.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by PatNY

I hope Apple's competitors file patents for every little thing they do -- no matter how ridiculous it seems -- just to be able to turn the tables on Apple in the future.

They already do, and have done for years.
This 'only Apple patents things' meme is just wrong.
Google have a patent on having a website logo that changes each day.
Amazon have a patent on having a button to buy something without any further confirmation steps.
Microsoft have a patent for display a wait icon while a webpage loads.
Cadbury have a patent on the use of a particular shade of purple in packaging for chocolate.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Cadbury have a patent on the use of a particular shade of purple in packaging for chocolate.

Are you sure that's a patent? It sounds more like a trademark.

[Dopedangel]

My guess is Samsung is unable to make enough processors for itself as well as Apple so raised prices Apple will go to someone cheaper and Samsung won't have to keep producing for Apple till 2014 when the contract expires

[tompe]

Originally Posted by PatNY

Speaking for myself, there is this ill will toward Apple because I think they are being overly litigious -- to the point where it stifles competition and innovation and raises costs for consumers. I hope Apple's competitors file patents for every little thing they do -- no matter how ridiculous it seems -- just to be able to turn the tables on Apple in the future.

--Pat

And related to that is the fact that they on purpose have a walled garden. The strategy is to lock people into their ecosystem and their ecosystem is on purpose not compatible with things outside the ecosystem.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

They already do, and have done for years.
This 'only Apple patents things' meme is just wrong.
Google have a patent on having a website logo that changes each day.
Amazon have a patent on having a button to buy something without any further confirmation steps.
Microsoft have a patent for display a wait icon while a webpage loads.
Cadbury have a patent on the use of a particular shade of purple in packaging for chocolate.

Who's saying "only Apple patents things?" Rather I'm saying Apple's patenting is extreme and frivolous and, more importantly, their litigation based on such extreme patenting is excessive and harmful to consumers. Simply holding a patent is not evil, but carelessly wielding that patent like a weapon in the courts to squash competition and harm consumers is.

And I'm not too sure Apple's competition are "frivolous" enough in their own patenting efforts. Samsung should have attempted to patent the 7-8" tablet form factor. Even if eventually denied, it might have at least delayed or temporarily derailed Apple's introduction of their Mini, which is a knockoff of Samsung's 7 and 7.7" tablets.

Hopefully Google has patented home page widgets for Android. That's something that iOS has never had. If Apple attempts to add them to iOS, then Google should sue the pants off them.

--Pat

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by holymadness

My guess is that there is something fishy about this story. If Apple and Samsung have a contract that is valid until 2014, there is no way Samsung can unilaterally impose a 20% price increase after its signing to get revenge for patent wars, or what have you. Either the price increase (or a clause permitting it under certain conditions) was already stipulated in the contract, or this is simply untrue.

Don't see anything fishy at all. Contracts don't always specify fixed pricing for goods. Manufacturing costs are all too frequently impacted by fluctuations in prices for raw materials and labor, not to mention natural disasters, that specifying a fixed hard price often makes little sense.

--Pat

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by PatNY

Samsung should have attempted to patent the 7-8" tablet form factor. Even if eventually denied, it might have at least delayed or temporarily derailed Apple's introduction of their Mini, which is a knockoff of Samsung's 7 and 7.7" tablets.

Contrary to popular belief here, Apple did not attempt to patent all rectangles with rounded corners. They patented a particular set of design features. There is a reason they didn't sue B&N, Amazon, Asus, and so on, because the designs of those companies tablets were clearly outside of Apple's patent.
Similarly, Samsung could not file a design patent for the idea of a 7" tablet, or for all possible 7" tablets. They could patent the specific design features of their particular 7" tablet.

Hopefully Google has patented home page widgets for Android. That's something that iOS has never had. If Apple attempts to add them to iOS, then Google should sue the pants off them.

Apple's original iPhone patent included widgets.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Contrary to popular belief here, Apple did not attempt to patent all rectangles with rounded corners. They patented a particular set of design features. There is a reason they didn't sue B&N, Amazon, Asus, and so on, because the designs of those companies tablets were clearly outside of Apple's patent.
Similarly, Samsung could not file a design patent for the idea of a 7" tablet, or for all possible 7" tablets. They could patent the specific design features of their particular 7" tablet.



Apple's original iPhone patent included widgets.

Who said Apple attempted to patent "all rectangles with rounded corners?" Again, the filing of patents is not the issue. It's the way the holder wields those patents in costly and harmful litigation that's the real problem.

Sure, Samsung could file a design patent for smaller form tablets. It might eventually be denied, but at least they can file it.

As for the widgets, I suspect there is already a patent somewhere preceding Apple's which includes widgets in a mobile device. Otherwise it makes no sense that Apple has yet to introduce them to their iOS. Apple customers have been asking for them for years.

--Pat

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by PatNY

Don't see anything fishy at all. Contracts don't always specify fixed pricing for goods. Manufacturing costs are all too frequently impacted by fluctuations in prices for raw materials and labor, not to mention natural disasters, that specifying a fixed hard price often makes little sense.

--Pat

Lol I am not sure what industry you work in but I assure you that fixing a unit cost is the first element of any purchase contract. This particular contract may include clauses that allow the manufacturer to raise or renegotiate prices if certain conditions are met, such as inflation or labour costs reaching agreed-to levels, but Samsung would never be given the ability by either Apple or the courts to raise prices arbitrarily. The idea that they could suits the revenge wishes of the Apple-haters, but is so divorced from reality that it shows to what extent they're willing to believe anything so long as it lines up with their prejudices.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by PatNY

As for the widgets, I suspect there is already a patent somewhere preceding Apple's which includes widgets in a mobile device. Otherwise it makes no sense that Apple has yet to introduce them to their iOS. Apple customers have been asking for them for years.

There are lots of things people want that Apple haven't added, such as SD card use.
Apple do what they do.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Lol I am not sure what industry you work in but I assure you that fixing a unit cost is the first element of any purchase contract. This particular contract may include clauses that allow the manufacturer to raise or renegotiate prices if certain conditions are met, such as inflation or labour costs reaching agreed-to levels, but Samsung would never be given the ability by either Apple or the courts to raise prices arbitrarily. The idea that they could suits the revenge wishes of the Apple-haters, but is so divorced from reality that it shows to what extent they're willing to believe anything so long as it lines up with their prejudices.

Not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying someone fabricated the story? If so, who?

Obviously, either this was a newly agreed-to contract extension, OR, Samsung was allowed to alter prices at some interval in the existing contract based upon certain criteria which they obviously met. What their motives were is irrelevant, so long as they stayed within the parameters of the contract.

Bottom line, there is nothing fishy about the original story as reported. LOL indeed.

--Pat

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

There are lots of things people want that Apple haven't added, such as SD card use.
Apple do what they do.

Adding an SD card is different as it raises the cost and size of an item. And it discourages people from using a money-making cloud-based resource.

Home page widgets have no such considerations. There is no valid reason not to put them in, so I suspect someone else already has patented them for mobile devices. That's why Apple has yet to add them.

--Pat

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by PatNY

Adding an SD card is different as it raises the cost and size of an item. And it discourages people from using a money-making cloud-based resource.

Home page widgets have no such considerations. There is no valid reason not to put them in, so I suspect someone else already has patented them for mobile devices. That's why Apple has yet to add them

It is the same reason for SD cards and widgets, it adds complexity.
Apple don't like complexity, they like simplicity, even if that removes functionality.