Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Real Reason Apple Is Suing Samsung

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the same-thing-we-do-every-night-pinky dept.

Android 514

doperative writes with this quote from a speculative piece at Business Insider about Apple's real motive behind its recent lawsuit against Samsung's Galaxy devices: "Android is free. In some cases, it's even cheaper than free, with Google sharing some revenue from Google searches on Android phones with partners. This is hugely disruptive to both Microsoft and Apple's business models; Microsoft because they make money on software licenses, and Apple on hardware. And this disruptive approach is winning: Android is surging past iOS in marketshare. A lawsuit from a big company, even if doomed, still takes a lot of time, energy and money to fight off. So Samsung or someone else might settle, accepting to pay some form of license. If that happens, Apple can go around to the other manufacturers asking for the same license and have a much stronger claim. And now OEMs have to factor that cost into the decision to choose Android. And all of a sudden, Android has a price." Samsung has fired back with a lawsuit of its own.

cancel ×

514 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

aplle is the shit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915196)

anroid is just some copycat

Re:aplle is the shit (-1, Troll)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915262)

Step 1: Build copycat of loathed "hipster-using-walled-garden-locked-down-shiny-shiny-shiny"

Step 2: Call your pale imitation "superior" an "innovative", paint users as "tech saavy" while selling out all the personal data for advertising everywhere.

Step 3: Laugh at the douche-y wannabes duped into shilling for you.

Step 4: Oh yeah, PROFIT!

Re:aplle is the shit (-1, Troll)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915418)

Step 5: Get modded troll by unconscious corporate shills for telling truth. I did know it was coming, but my post is still informative in real life. :P

Re:aplle is the shit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915448)

Your post is a lot of subjective adjectives. How is that informative? You don't have one singe piece of information in your post.

Re:aplle is the shit (-1, Troll)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915474)

...that you can assimilate. That's what fanbois experience when someone points out their emperor is nude.

Re:aplle is the shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915564)

Fanboyism/blind obedience is informative to some.

Re:aplle is the shit (2)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915480)

I can afford to have this point undone.

I am not corporate shill, Google and Apple can mutually destroy each other for all I care. But if your post is a single sentence of five words with no grammar or punctuation, and you don't even bother to make a defined, supported, coherent point, then yes, I AM going to mod you down, and with the "Troll" marker, as there is no "Moron" marker in the moderation system.
This refers to the Anonymous Coward of the opening post, but could also be applied to you, jangle. If you are going to make a point, support it with something, and have a goddamn point to make in the first place. Your post is informative, yes: it informs me that you're only capable of blindly trashing some product that you don't agree with, using an old, outdated meme, without being able to support your points with logical arguments.

Re:aplle is the shit (-1, Offtopic)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915494)

Ok, then if you're not shilling, answer this -- is your Android device running your custom kernel? Why not?

Re:aplle is the shit (0)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915512)

Because I'm not a Unix kernel hacker who can write his own kernel. I'm just a student, whose interest in technology doesn't extend to rewriting Unix kernels, as that's too much learning and way out of may chosen career path.

Re:aplle is the shit (-1, Troll)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915776)

Right, so why did you leave out the fact that you don't own an android device that doesn't have a locked bootloader and hence could not run any kernel but the one your carrier installed? And why are you pretending I meant "create a custom kernel from scratch" when everyone knows "your custom kernel" means your custom kernel configuration? Is that due to ignorance or is it denial?

Re:aplle is the shit (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915844)

Right, so why did you leave out the fact that you don't own an android device that doesn't have a locked bootloader and hence could not run any kernel but the one your carrier installed?

Because I have a Nexus S, where it's relatively easy to unlock the bootloader. The fact that I don't want to bother with this, because it offers me no benefits, is another topic entirely.

And why are you pretending I meant "create a custom kernel from scratch" when everyone knows "your custom kernel" means your custom kernel configuration? Is that due to ignorance or is it denial?

Neither. I don't know how to compile a custom kernel nor how to write a new one. Making that distinction is pointless in this case, since I already state I'm not a programmer, so both are out of my league.

Now you answer me this: how do you hope to prove that I'm shilling with these questions?

Yes, and? (5, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915202)

It's the same reason Microsoft got "licensing agreements" with all the other handset vendors and is suing Motorola right now. They put a gun to their head and said "release WP7 handsets or we'll sue you for patent infringement." All the others complied, and Motorola is being sued for patent infringement. This is why Microsoft loves software patents and doesn't oppose them outright.

Yes, both Apple and Microsoft are anti-choice and act in anti-competitive manners. This is nothing new, nor will anyone step in to stop it.

Re:Yes, and? (4, Interesting)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915288)

These days litigation & licensing are priced into the final cost to produce any pice of technology (especially consumer electronics like cellphones, computers & tablets). It's just a cost of doing business and is passed on to the customer like everything else.

Does the Samsung UI look like the Apple UI? Yes it does, but not enough that a user is going to mistakenly buy a Samsung instead of an Apple product. Is the Apple claim the the Samsung tablet looks too much like the iPad valid? Well, both are flat, rectangular, have rounded corners and have edges around the screen. Isn't that basically a description of the tablet form factor?

Re:Yes, and? (5, Funny)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915316)

Wonderful to see the patent system doing its job to promote innovation, isn't it?

that makes little sense (4, Informative)

kervin (64171) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915472)

You have any evidence of this at all? I mean the slightest?

Very few of Microsoft's former mobile partners have agreed to work with WP7. Even Sony, which was exclusively WM6 is now a fierce exclusively Android competitor. Microsoft hasn't sued any of them.

Motorola was on a patent war path. The timing of the Motorola suite suggests that Microsoft sued Motorola on behalf of some of its other hardware partners, which unlike Apple, it desperately needs.

Re:that makes little sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915828)

.I think Sony could sue Microsoft to oblivion with Game console patents...

Re:Yes, and? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915574)

solution is simple, stop buying these companies products, period.

Re:Yes, and? (3, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915684)

Yes, both Apple and Microsoft are anti-choice and act in anti-competitive manners.

Profit-maximizing companies are against choice and competition, it is nothing unique to those two corporations. Competition is great for customers and innovation, but it's never good for profits. The only reason companies don't completely snuff out their competition is antitrust laws, which makes it better to have a weak competitor with 5-10% of the market and breathing problems. If they ever say they want to increase competition it's to weaken or usurp another competitor. Like for example Google wants to weaken Microsoft's hold on the browser market through Firefox and Chrome. They certainly don't want Bing or Yahoo to succeed even if that meant increased competition in the search market. This should be business 101, you know what they call "perfect competition"? The profit there is zero. Is it any wonder they want imperfect competition? Preferably as flawed as possible.

Re:Yes, and? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915768)

No the profit in perfect competition is not zero. The profit in perfect competition is what is called normal, the rate that rewards capital cost and opportunity cost, besides other variables. What is called zero profit in microeconomics is abnormal profits. A perfect competition market is said to have no such abnormal profits because competitors will enter and end with those surpluses.

It's all beautiful theory since there is no such thing as perfect competition. It's a microeconomic model based on quite a few assumptions that aren't that much reality-driven. It's useful to analyse markets but there will never be such thing as perfect competition.

Now get back to talk about you understand and leave economics for those who understand it.

Re:Yes, and? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915840)

The profit under zero competition is not zero - only the marginal profit is zero. The profit under perfect competition when selling a unit is the difference between the constant price a widget is sold at, and the cost to manufacture the widget, which increases with the number of widgets already sold due to the law of diminishing returns. This difference is summed up over all widgets, from unit 1 to the last widget. On the last widget, the competitor breaks even, but he makes a profit on all the other widgets.

it is why (3, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915204)

I seldom worry about apple's lock strategies. Once you start down the road of tight lockin you either have to sue your way out of it, or you are forced to let go.

In the case of music apple basically scared the music studios into stripping off DRM. Now apple is being aggressively stupid themselves. It will bite them on the arse. It will be interesting to watch. but apple can't affect android the way oracle can with java and davik.

Re:it is why (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915320)

1. They have to be aggressive because if they don't, someone else will be aggressive to them. It's how it works now.

2. Apple can't "affect" Android because there's nothing to affect. It's an OS and it does its thing. However, when another company makes a reasonable facsimile of their device, on purpose due to popularity and design preference, they have every right to go after them. Right or wrong it's what they have to do in this market.

I hate the lawsuits simply because it ends up in the news and I have to hear about the lawyers continuing to get rich. I really wish they'd go back to ambulance chasing instead. At least they had to work then ;-)

Re:it is why (4, Insightful)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915410)

1. They have to be aggressive because if they don't, someone else will be aggressive to them. It's how it works now.

Is it? You can accumulate a patent arsenal without being the first one to sue. It seems to me that all filing the lawsuit does is serve as an admission to your prospective customers that you can't win on the merits. Winners win, losers litigate.

Re:it is why (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915432)

2. Apple can't "affect" Android because there's nothing to affect. It's an OS and it does its thing. However, when another company makes a reasonable facsimile of their device, on purpose due to popularity and design preference, they have every right to go after them. Right or wrong it's what they have to do in this market.

No, they don't. That was settled a long time ago when Apple was ruled against in their suit against MS over look and feel. If you look at the previous summary it's very clear that Apple is trying to do an end run around the normal prohibition on suits over look and feel. ZOMG Samsung is using a rectangle with rounded corners, it's not like everybody else does that, hell, my Nook is a rectangular shape with rounded corners. As is my Asus Eee PC when closed.

They get no respect from me for using their patents to try and enforce a clearly unwarranted view of protection for their look and feel.

Re:it is why (5, Insightful)

scotts13 (1371443) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915552)

No, they don't. That was settled a long time ago when Apple was ruled against in their suit against MS over look and feel. If you look at the previous summary it's very clear that Apple is trying to do an end run around the normal prohibition on suits over look and feel.

Actually, that wasn't why they lost the case. You can certainly protect your look and feel, companies do it every day. Apple lost that particular case, against that particular company, because Microsoft had a license allowing them to use some elements of the GUI. Granted, Apple had foolishly given away much more in that contract than they intended to; if they hadn't, computing would be very different today. And BTW, don't bring up Xerox - they were paid handsomely for their contribution, all nice and legal.

Re:it is why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915370)

Well, if Apple wants to destroy Android, they should buy Oracle.

Although Apple is smaller in terms of people, it's revenues, net income, assets, cash-on-hand, and market cap are substantially higher than Oracle's. Apple could then get into the Enterprise (really, this time), to fight off Microsoft and HP.

Ellison would never let it happen though, unless he became CEO of Apple - which might be a bad thing in some ways, but he's just as much of a prick as Steve Jobs. And there you have it, a succession plan for Jobs as well. I guess that wraps that up in a neat little package.

Re:it is why (5, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915446)

I seldom worry about apple's lock strategies. Once you start down the road of tight lockin you either have to sue your way out of it, or you are forced to let go.

They are hoping to make the other party let go.

But instead of doing that, Samsung is counter-suing Apple all over the world. This is a good strategy, forcing Apple to fight off of their own turf. Dragging Apple executives half way around the world where they don't have the advantage of pre-filled pockets and rabid fanbois in the jury pool.

In fact Apple could lose big time to this technique. Sure Samsung makes parts for iPhones, but they make pennies on this compared to what they make on a Galaxy handset. Samsung can send Apple packing, and quietly "suggest" a reduction in supply of key components to any other companies that favor Apple too strongly. Apple can not win a land war in Asia.

But more to the point, Apples current round of suits are predominantly alleging that the Galaxy phones look too much like iPhones. This is a really hard claim to win. Nikon and Canon and Minolta as well as Ford and Chevy would get nowhere with that claim. This screams desperation. Especially when Galaxy phones don't look at all like iPhones.

   

Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915208)

I think the reason they're suing is because Samsung's skin does in fact slavishly copy the iPhone look and feel.

Could that be it??

Re:Maybe (2)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915398)

Only if you can look at an iPhone and think "Wow! That's totally unlike every other gadget ever made! I wish I'd invented that amazingly awesome new shape!!"

If not...

Re:Maybe (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915414)

Rubbish. http://i.imgur.com/aLGOQ.jpg [imgur.com]

This isn't the first time apple has tried to sue over vague look and feel like assholes. Last time, in a saner era (well, apart from the thousands of nukes just waiting to rain down on USA and Russia and anyone in-between), they got their ass handed to them on a plate, and today we can use computers not made by apple that have windows, icons, mouse and pointer etc. (remember apple didn't actually come up with any of those things, they're just a litigation and marketing engine since Woz left in disgust). Unfortunately with the US legal system as corrupted as it is today, they might win this time.

Re:Maybe (1)

click2005 (921437) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915774)

Unfortunately with the US legal system as corrupted as it is today, they might win this time.

One corporation with (effectively) unlimited resources against another corporation with (effectively) unlimited resources. I guess it'll come down to which has more/better lobbying power.

Re:Maybe (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915862)

You should check your facts [wikipedia.org] . The Samsung F700 was named and acknowledged that they were working on it in 2006 but was not shown until Feb. 2007.

the legal system as a weapon (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915216)

> A lawsuit from a big company, even if doomed, still takes a lot of time, energy and money to fight off.

This should be no surprise; it's exactly what the RIAA does to individuals. You don't have to be RIGHT, you only have to tie up enough time, money, energy, and effort that it isn't worth the cost to the recipient.

So if you sue anyone making rectangular tablet computers with ions, you might get a revenue stream, but if not, you have still cost them a lot of trouble to round up related document, emails, put a case together, and so on. And you have cast FUD on anyone else who dares to not use your closed ecosystem - smaller players may not be able to defend themselves adequately.

A smart tactic, since the system allows it, but a highly sleazy one nonetheless.

Re:the legal system as a weapon (5, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915280)

Welcome to how the legal system works - justice is not a part of it any more.

The sad part is that this kind of shit pervades even the "criminal justice" side.

Traffic tickets? Compare the cost of "just paying" (or in many states, "taking defensive driving") with the cost of defending yourself - lost hours of work on the days you have to go to court, lost time on paperwork or else lawyer fees to subpoena all the records you'll need, and oh yeah, the possibility that the case judge will be one of those corrupt motherfuckers who insist "the police are always right" because guess what, the judge's salary is paid out of ticket fines too.

I had one once where the police officer was obviously just using "pull someone over" as an excuse to hit on the new female recruit. Sat there and watched as he got everything about my car's info wrong on the ticket except for license plate - make, model, even the number of fucking DOORS - because he was too busy trying to "explain how we do this" while sneaking his hand onto her ass.

Didn't matter, of course. The Prosecutors are corrupt, the Judges are corrupt, the whole system is fucking corrupt and the fines and fees are set "just low enough" that most people will "just pay it" because it works out cheaper to do so.

Oh, and no, it's not just on the low side [slate.com] either. The American "justice" system has gotten the "plea bargain" down to a science - you can "plead guilty" to something you know you didn't do, get "lenience" from the court, OR they can tack on dozens of fucking extraneous charges and run you into the ground so that even if you do manage to convince the jury you're innocent on most of it, chances are they'll get one of the charges through, and you'll be fucking bankrupted by the cost of defending yourself anyways.

Re:the legal system as a weapon (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915630)

Welcome to how the legal system works - justice is not a part of it any more.

The sad part is that this kind of shit pervades even the "criminal justice" side.

Part of what keeps the current system in place is the myth that it's supposed to be about justice. This keeps people thinking it can be fixed, that it's just the people occupying the positions that are corrupt, not the positions themselves. It feeds on people's belief that good is good and bad is bad, and that "good" people would never become corrupted by being placed into corrupting situations. Thus there's no impetus to do away with a corrupting institution, only an endless hope that someday King Arthur and his knights will ride in and everything will be alright again.

Re:the legal system as a weapon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915814)

-1 Overrated.

This is a civil suit and doesn't have anything to do with justice.

Step 2 (1)

slapout (93640) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915228)

1. Create Product
2. ?
3. Profit!

I guess step 2 is "sue competitors"

Re:Step 2 (2)

Tsiangkun (746511) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915266)

Step 2) Sell products

Apple is moving HUGE amounts of iPhones and iPads.

Re:Step 2 (1, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915490)

Step 2) Sell products

Apple is moving HUGE amounts of iPhones and iPads.

If they were, they wouldn't be getting this desperate.

Apple IOS devices are being outsold better than two to one by android. They see the market they created slipping from their grasp.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20051610-17.html [cnet.com]

Re:Step 2 (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915568)

Apple IOS devices are being outsold better than two to one by android.

Even if this is true of iOS as a whole, what do makers of Android-powered devices have that most directly compares to Apple TV 2 or iPod touch? Most OHA Android-powered devices I've heard about are either tablets or contract phones. Archos 43 is kinda-sorta close to iPod touch, but it runs AOSP Android instead of OHA Android, and one has to use ArcTools to "pirate" the Android Market application to find any decent selection of applications because application developers tend to treat AppsLib users as second-class citizens.

Re:Step 2 (3, Insightful)

JesseDegenerate (936699) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915786)

I don't think that's the case. http://www.knowyourcell.com/news/858093/ios_reach_is_59_percent_greater_than_android_in_the_us.html [knowyourcell.com] when you compare one phone manufacturer's phone, and not the other devices on the platform, yet you count tablets for androids, yes the picture is certainly painted that way. However, on an even playing field, it's not so. your article posts smartphone data, yet you call it iOS devices, this, imo is intentionally misleading. not to mention this is one manufacturer against quite a few high profile, long term OEMs. I have no problems with android in anyway, but I do have a problem with fanboys distorting facts to make themselves feel better about a purchase? /owns a xoom and a ipad2, because i dev for gasp, both platforms.

Re:Step 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915508)

No they are not.
As even TFS states, there are A LOT more Android devices sold.

Also Apple devices are NOT computers. They are appliances.
The difference is, that computers are freely programmable by its users. While appliances can at best take manufacturer-approved parts ("apps" in this case).
So it's not really a comparison Apple could ever win.

Re:Step 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915622)

Total worldwide Apple iPhone sales since launch in 2007: ~73M
Total worldwide Apple iPad sales since launch in mid-2010: ~15M

The hilarious part? Those totals and the overall sales rate are about equal to Microsoft Vista... the most widely panned and poorly marketed Microsoft OS offering ever.

Total worldwide sales of just Microsoft Windows 7 since launch in mid-2009: ~350M

TLDR: Apple's best products ever are roughly equal to Microsoft's worst OS offering.

Nice conspiracy theory, but... (5, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915232)

...bit of a problem or four in it, though:

* Apple is selling pretty much every iPhone they can make.
* the iPhone (in various versions) is the single top-selling phone model, bar none. While overall, yes Android *phones* are selling equal-to-better, no single Android model is anywhere close to matching the iPhone. Therefore, why would Apple bother to chase just Samsung, and not LG, HTC, or a larger phone maker?
* Suing over design won't achieve the premise in TFA... phone makers will just make it look/feel different to work around the stated patent(s). If Apple was truly chasing the goal of crippling Android as a whole, they'd be better off going after the *core* of Android (like, well, Oracle is doing. Speaking of which...)
* Oracle is already working towards something that would achieve the same thing, but to provide Oracle an income stream - so why would Apple feel it had to do something similar, when Oracle is already doing it for them, and has been running that lawsuit long before Apple fired a shot across Samsung's bow?

Re:Nice conspiracy theory, but... (1)

Corbets (169101) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915350)

...bit of a problem or four in it, though:

* Apple is selling pretty much every iPhone they can make.
* the iPhone (in various versions) is the single top-selling phone model, bar none. While overall, yes Android *phones* are selling equal-to-better, no single Android model is anywhere close to matching the iPhone. Therefore, why would Apple bother to chase just Samsung, and not LG, HTC, or a larger phone maker?
* Suing over design won't achieve the premise in TFA... phone makers will just make it look/feel different to work around the stated patent(s). If Apple was truly chasing the goal of crippling Android as a whole, they'd be better off going after the *core* of Android (like, well, Oracle is doing. Speaking of which...)
* Oracle is already working towards something that would achieve the same thing, but to provide Oracle an income stream - so why would Apple feel it had to do something similar, when Oracle is already doing it for them, and has been running that lawsuit long before Apple fired a shot across Samsung's bow?

Thank you. Further, Apple and Google are in different markets here; Apple is, as TFS even mentions, selling hardware (or more realistically, a hardware / software / "lifestyle" package). Google is (mostly) pushing an operating system. The fact that Android is getting a large(r) market share is not indicative of any kind of unpleasant outcome for Apple; they're exactly where they want to be, doing exactly what they want to do, and making money hand over fist.

Re:Nice conspiracy theory, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915542)

(or more realistically, a hardware / software / "alternative lifestyle" package)

Fixed that for you.

Re:Nice conspiracy theory, but... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915364)

That's like saying the MAC is the top selling model of Personal Computers... Just because there are so many other models in the PC camp. It comes down to trying to slice the numbers to benefit what point you are trying to make.

No matter how try to phrase it won't change the fact that there are more phones with Android being sold with them than iOS, and that is likely to not change in the future. Sorry if that hurts your Apple Fanboism.

Re:Nice conspiracy theory, but... (1, Troll)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915462)

If you are a fanboy, YOU will be hurt to know that there are more devices [comscore.com] being sold with iOS than with Android. Not that it matters. Both platforms are doing quite well.

Re:Nice conspiracy theory, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915682)

Haha talk about slicing the numbers... "total US subscribers, aged 13+" and including iPods? hahahahahaha give me a break. The US is only 4% of the World's population. Android is destroying Apple in every other market.

Re:Nice conspiracy theory, but... (1, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915736)

I don't know where you are getting your numbers for 'every other market,' but in Europe at least, iOS is beating Android as far as I can tell [electronista.com] .

Mods, if you want to mod me down, do it because you have data that shows I am wrong, not because your inner fanboy is coming out. And for the record, I prefer Android because it is open. But I care about data more.

Re:Nice conspiracy theory, but... (1)

babblefrog (1013127) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915850)

I believe those comScore numbers are installed base, not current sales.

Re:Nice conspiracy theory, but... (2)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915380)

...bit of a problem or four in it, though:

* Apple is selling pretty much every iPhone they can make.

You seriously believe a company like Apple cannot ramp up production if there is demand?

* the iPhone (in various versions) is the single top-selling phone model, bar none. While overall, yes Android *phones* are selling equal-to-better, no single Android model is anywhere close to matching the iPhone. Therefore, why would Apple bother to chase just Samsung, and not LG, HTC, or a larger phone maker?

Yeah, it is, but other phones are catching up, how much more can apple keep innovating. This is more like a plan for 5 years down the lane. And smaller players are easier to sue, than larger ones, RTFA

* Suing over design won't achieve the premise in TFA... phone makers will just make it look/feel different to work around the stated patent(s). If Apple was truly chasing the goal of crippling Android as a whole, they'd be better off going after the *core* of Android (like, well, Oracle is doing. Speaking of which...)

There some patents that cannot be worked around, like having rounded edges

* Oracle is already working towards something that would achieve the same thing, but to provide Oracle an income stream - so why would Apple feel it had to do something similar, when Oracle is already doing it for them, and has been running that lawsuit long before Apple fired a shot across Samsung's bow?

Oracle is mainly targeting Androids Dev Env, and mainly Google, it hardly cares about what happens to the cell phone manufactures. Besides, it looks like the result of Oracle suit will probably be a small fine from Google, nothing more, Hardly what Apple wants.

Re:Nice conspiracy theory, but... (2)

brokeninside (34168) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915800)

1. Ramping up production is not an easy thing if you want to keep an eye on quality control and only ramp up as much as you know you need to ramp up. Apple has the cash to ramp up to insane volumes. But they won't do that. Doing that would be idiocy. Far better to sell every device they make and slowly ramp up until they get to a point where they're only selling almost every device they make. That would appear to be what they're doing.

2. Other phones are catching up? Really? Name one model of smartphone that is selling anywhere close to the iPhone4 in terms of raw numbers.

3. Can't work around having rounded edges? Seriously? How about by having sharp edges?

4. I mostly agree with you on the issue of Oracle "already" doing what TFA says that Apple wants to do. It's really apples and oranges. For the most part, Apple doesn't care how much other phone manfacturers pay to license an OS. Why don't they care? Simple, Apple's profit margin is already higher per unit even when other companies get their OS for free. And, believe it or not, Apple doesn't really care about market share. What they care about is profits.

(PS. if Oracle wins against Google and other Android devs, the handset manufcturers that use Android will be next on the list.)

Re:Nice conspiracy theory, but... (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915650)

...bit of a problem or four in it, though:

* Apple is selling pretty much every iPhone they can make.

Then why sue the company on whom, your technology is dependent.

If this is true (which it isn't, the shortage of Iphones is a delusion of Fanboys, I can go out and buy one myself in six hours if I hated my wallet (12:56 +8 GMT, no 24 Hour phone shops here))

* the iPhone (in various versions) is the single top-selling phone model, bar none. While overall, yes Android *phones* are selling equal-to-better, no single Android model is anywhere close to matching the iPhone. Therefore, why would Apple bother to chase just Samsung, and not LG, HTC, or a larger phone maker?

A sign of things to come. [wired.com] It's the same as Windows vs Mac, Windows ran on anyones hardware, providing a standardised environment which could be used to run any application. Android is the same. A single application can be made to run across multiple versions and disparate hardware. Apple are right to be scared, it's the 80's all over again, complete with the "look and feel" law suit.

* Suing over design won't achieve the premise in TFA... phone makers will just make it look/feel different to work around the stated patent(s). If Apple was truly chasing the goal of crippling Android as a whole, they'd be better off going after the *core* of Android (like, well, Oracle is doing. Speaking of which...)

Why?

Becuase Google can defend itself. That alone will scare Apple off.

Why else?

Because Apple and Google were close once, attack Google directly and all kinds of skeletons would fly out of the closet. Why really?

Because they dont have to. If they can scare the manufacturers away, Google will piss away money on the Android project to no avail.

In other words Apple has too much to lose by attacking Google.

* Oracle is already working towards something that would achieve the same thing, but to provide Oracle an income stream - so why would Apple feel it had to do something similar, when Oracle is already doing it for them, and has been running that lawsuit long before Apple fired a shot across Samsung's bow?

But Apple already has something that generates an income stream. What you've unwittingly pointed out is that they are suing to protect that stream from a very advanced competitor.

Apple want to have a competitor eliminated. They cannot do it via technology so they are attempting to use the legal system as a cudgel.

Re:Nice conspiracy theory, but... (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915668)

Actually it is all a load of bupkis. MS has always been, to some degree, a disruptive busines model. How disruptive it depends on the time and the market. It provides often cheap alternative to necessary technology. In the phone market this has not worked so well because there are already cheap alternatives, often provided by premier brands. In this way, Google and Android is about as disruptive as Openoffice.org and Sun. It is simply expanding and existing market, not really taking sales from anyone.

As far as Apple is concerned, it does provide disruptive technology, like Compaq used to. RIM sales did go down in response to the iPhone. A smart phone market for the masses was created, and the feature phone slaes declined. The iPhone provided a real alternative to those who did not want the technology controlled by the mobile phone companies because then the technology was never developed or optimized for the end user.

All google has done is put control of the phone back in the hands of the mobile phone provider. Google tried to do what Apple was doing, with the nexus one, but they failed. So the fight right now is who is going to control the smart phone. Is it going to be companies that cater to the consumer, i.e. Apple; Companies that cater to corporate end users, i.e. RIM; or companies that cater to the mobile phone providers, i.e. Google. MS is somewhere in between these, but is using large cash reserves to fortify the position.

Note that Google, like MS, is paying mobile phone OEMs to use the software. Googles is sharing revenue and funding development of the software. Google, like MS, is limiting who favored partners are, and limiting what can be done with Android. Ultimately, the Android phone, like the Windows 7 phone will be developed to maximize after market profits for MS and Google. With MS this will be done by extending the MS brand. With Google this will be done by search and tracking and analytics. Apple works on a straight revenue sharing agreement, and has not incentive to cripple phones to upmarket features. Apple makes money by making the consumer happy, with iTunes, not making the mobile phone companies happy.

So what are these lawsuits about. They are to delay the implementations of certain features that Apple considers critical to the market of the iPhone. Of course Apple is going to lose, but if Apple can keep the copy cat OEMs two generation back then Apple can remain the market leader.

The idea to sell every iPhone and iPad the can be built, and sold at a high profit, and let the others have the rest. This is different from MS and Google who depend on very large number of sales to drive their secondary markets. I am not hugely concerned with these suits. the technology is out there, and is being driven by consumer demand. The suits do not appear to limiting availability, except in the tablet market where google seems to purposefully be preventing OEMs from innovating using Android, and MS seems unintersted in pushing their tablet assets.

I thought Apple and Samsung were friends (0)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915242)

Don't Samsung manufacture a lot of (most of?) the flash chips that go into Apple products? Did they maybe have a tacit deal (collusion) that Samsung broke, and now Apple is getting revenge to send a message to all the smaller companies that also have a tacit deal with Apple? This is kind of ugly.

Re:I thought Apple and Samsung were friends (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915308)

No, Samsung is a supplier and Apple is one of their customers. They are also competitors. Apple is suing Samsung qua competitor, not Samsung qua supplier. No secret deal needed to make sense of this. Frankly, the idea of companies being "friends" is a bit weird, though say the CEO of two companies might be friends (don't know that that's the case here).

Re:I thought Apple and Samsung were friends (3, Informative)

similar_name (1164087) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915532)

Frankly, the idea of companies being "friends" is a bit weird

It's [guardian.co.uk] very [dailymail.co.uk] weird [businessweek.com] indeed [seattlepi.com]

Re:I thought Apple and Samsung were friends (3, Insightful)

yeshuawatso (1774190) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915312)

First rule of business: there's no such things as friends in business. Really, friends is a strong term. In a supply chain, one person is always trying to be the dominate player, be it the retailers, suppliers, or the warehouses and logistics players.

Re:I thought Apple and Samsung were friends (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915460)

Companies that behave like that tend not to last very long. The reason being that if you're supplier isn't being well cared for and bad things happen, all of a sudden you're screwed because they're withholding shipments or taking their time delivering. While not quite analogous, look at what's been happening to Toyota lately with their production facilities in Japan damaged from the quake.

Re:I thought Apple and Samsung were friends (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915338)

DoI thought Apple and Samsung were friends

They are. But friends are friends, and business is business. These days being in business often includes suing other companies (or even customers).

This is kind of ugly.

It sure is - I wonder how these types of companies do business with each other after all this fades away (or is settled)?

Re:I thought Apple and Samsung were friends (1)

tuxicle (996538) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915358)

They also manufacture the A4 (ie, Samsung S5L8930) ARM SoC that powers the iPhone 4, and the various other SoCs that power the older iPhones. At least with Flash chips, you have alternate vendors you can go to. Not so with an SoC - doing the technology transfer to a different semiconductor fab would be expensive (remember that Apple designed the A4, not Samsung).

Having said that, the conspiracy theorist in me wants to believe that maybe Apple might jump ship from ARM to Power Architecture, especially since they acquired P.A. Semi.

Re:I thought Apple and Samsung were friends (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915404)

...and then they'll jump to x86 just like they did with the Macs.

Re:I thought Apple and Samsung were friends (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915582)

Not so with an SoC - doing the technology transfer to a different semiconductor fab would be expensive (remember that Apple designed the A4, not Samsung).

But not impossible. Contracting TSMC or TI to fab the A5 is not out of the question. Also it would be advantageous in terms of logistics. After all if the numbers are to be believed, Apple will sell upwards of 30 million iPad 2s this year alone. Having more than one supplier of their chip might take time but it would be worth it to keep up production.

Having said that, the conspiracy theorist in me wants to believe that maybe Apple might jump ship from ARM to Power Architecture, especially since they acquired P.A. Semi.

They hired PA Semi for the talent and some IP but they also bought Intrinsity for this purpose. The main reason ARM is so widely used it is the power efficiency is better than x86. I don't know if Power can match that.

Re:I thought Apple and Samsung were friends (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915610)

(remember that Apple designed the A4, not Samsung).

Remember that Samsung designed the core, not Apple.

Shifting to a different core would cost them, not as much as trying to get another fab up and running in short order, not to mention lost sales.

What would lost sales do to the APPL share price? Considering its a share that pays 0 dividends. Financially minded owners would liquidate it in seconds, and that's most of APPL shareholders.

Re:I thought Apple and Samsung were friends (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915870)

Remember that Samsung designed the core, not Apple.

I believe ARM designed the core. That's why it's an ARM processor. Samsung may have designed the first iPhone chips but the A4 and A5 are Apple designs.

Re:I thought Apple and Samsung were friends (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915362)

Indeed, and Samsung may just delay the odd IC and SSD shipment to Apple in the future. Apple needs Samsung more than vice versa.

Re:I thought Apple and Samsung were friends (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915556)

I'm sure that Apple (if they were smart) has more than one supplier for commodity items like flash memory. In the last ifixit iPad 2 teardowns, one had a Toshiba chip and the other had a Samsung chip. I've heard rumors that Apple signed TSMC? to fab their A5 chips. Part of the reason was to diversify their supply chain and this lawsuit might have been the other reason.

Doesn't make sense (4, Interesting)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915244)

This doesn't make sense. Why? Because the Apple v. Samsung suit is supposedly about trademark/design infringement. Because the Galaxy looks way too much like Apple's products. Not about anything technical about it.

Or am I missing something here? And is there something fundamental to Android that this suit is about?

And if it is fundamental to Android, logically the suit should be targeting Google - the author of the Android system. But it seems Google is not involved in this one (yet).

Oh and Android surging over iOS is no surprise but just natural... iOS is limited to one current and a few old models phone, and one current and one old model tablet. Android is not limited and currently available on dozens of current, and possibly hundreds of old models of phones and tablets. Not exactly an even fight.

Sorry it's bedtime (midnight here) so not going to read TFA. Apple shouldn't have much to fear from Android - about as much as it has to fear from Windows in the personal computing world. It competes just fine there.

Microsoft that's the potential big loser here, as they have to sell their OS and are really competing head-to-head with Android. In a market where pennies count, they want to add dollars to the cost. Apple has no such issues, there is no price on an iOS license, afaik it's not even for sale other than in combination with a piece of hardware.

Re:Doesn't make sense (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915340)

You got it right. This suit about the Galaxy phones/tablets' specific design, not about core android. The author of the article, and the person who submitted it to Slashdot probably didn't examine the specifics of the suit at all and assumed that it had to do with software patents, which it doesn't, since Android is open source and iOS isn't. Software patents are evil in all but perhaps a handful of cases, to the point that they shouldn't exist at all, but this suit has nothing to do with them.

Can Apple really expect to win this? (2)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915278)

They are suing the primary supplier of their LCDs. Sure there are others out there, but few that make panels as nice as Samsung, and Apple is known for having some of the best OEM displays on the market. If the lawsuit looks like it is swinging in Apple's favor, Samsung can exert pressure on Apple by either jacking up the LCD prices or threatening to no longer supply them at all. They certainly have plenty of other customers (and their own product lines) such that they could carry on without Apple.

But if next month Apple MacBooks all had crappy LCDs in them, that would hurt Apple significantly (even more so if their big external $3000 - $4000 displays went that way).

Re:Can Apple really expect to win this? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915322)

And it would equally hurt Samsung to lose Apple. Apple devices aren't selling simply because they have Samsung displays. They're selling because the consumer public likes the whole package. Even if Samsung signed up other manufacturers after losing Apple, would the others be able to sell enough product to keep Samsung's factory running? Would the others be willing to pay up-front for a long-term guaranteed supply?

The conspiracy theorists are going nuts here. Have you actually looked at the devices in question? Side by side? Samsung did it's very best to make their phone look exactly like an iPhone. The average consumer could be mislead into thinking it was an iPhone. That's what the case is about.

Re:Can Apple really expect to win this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915354)

Unlikely. Apple recently announced that they spent about $4 billion in getting exclusivity to parts. The consensus among analysts and from the rest of the market was that most of it was for LCDs (see RIM Playbook delay). If indeed it was for LCDs and most of it was pre-order from Samsung, it would be a pretty big breach of contract for Samsung to suddenly deny them or jack up the prices on their pre-ordered panels. I know it sounds like a chain of speculations but there's quite enough information out that would support such a theory.

Re:Can Apple really expect to win this? (1)

ehynes (617617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915376)

Do you really believe that Apple's contract for displays with Samsung is week-to-week or even month-to-month? And even if Samsung could and did stop supplying Apple with LCDs, do you really believe they could quickly find enough buyers to purchase those LCDs at the same price in this economy?

Re:Can Apple really expect to win this? (2)

halivar (535827) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915408)

If Samsung punitively alters their deal with Apple, they will be injuring themselves also. No, this will not happen. Corporation continue to do business with each other despite litigation all the time. If the deal is good, it continues despite litigation.

Troll article, troll summary (2, Informative)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915298)

Not only is the article random speculation, but the summary title seems to suggest it is something definitive.

News just in, the real reason Apple is suing Samsung is because they both had lawyers with free time on their hands. It's true because someone on the internet said so!

The article makes some hilariously silly assumptions, borne out by the fact that Apple is selling iPhones (and other iOS devices) as fast as it can make them - so there's really no "threat" to their profits from Android. If anything, a healthy smartphone/tablet market is a positive thing for everyone involved.

Re:Troll article, troll summary (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915440)

News just in, Slashdot likes to post random speculation articles about highly charged topics for the hits. Stop feeding the trolls by clicking/posting in such articles.

Oh, wait...

The real real reason (4, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915332)

Apple is suing one manufacturer of Android phones who happens to make phones that look pretty much exactly the same as iPhones. It should be pretty obvious to anyone that Apple doesn't like competitors making phones that look like iPhones. If we were to believe the conspiracy theories of "Business Insider", then we would have to believe that Apple doesn't mind their designs being copied. And that I find quite unbelievable. The simplest and therefore most likely explanation for this lawsuit is that Apple doesn't like their designs being copied.

Corrections (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915386)

Android isn't free (as in beer or speech).
iOS is doing well and doing better than Android in many major markets.
Samsung can't design shit.

Money off hardware? (4, Insightful)

kwerle (39371) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915390)

Saying that Apple makes its money of hardware is disingenuous. Nobody (you 3 don't count) buys macs to run linux or windows - though both run fine. And there are plenty of folks who will tell you that apple phones and tablets are nothing special, hardware-wise.

Apple sells systems. Well integrated, easy to use systems.

I happen to like 'em because they also run *nix. (I don't care that you 3 don't like the flavor)

Disruptive approach wins, just like desktop Linux! (1)

DavidR1991 (1047748) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915392)

...Pfft, nah, I have no issue with Linux, but I couldn't help adding that in there..

The free / disruptive logic is critically flawed, because a huge majority of people don't even know what an OS is, let alone whether it's free or not. The only way you could spin this is if you said it's free for phone manufacturers - which is a fair point - if they don't have to pay for it, it's more likely they'll put it on their phone. That's an argument against MS - but not Apple. Apple is defined by their software/hardware mix being unique, so to spin it as 'it's not free so it'll lose' makes no sense (Apple doesn't give out their OS to anyone, free or paid)

Seriously? (1)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915424)

Seriously? I think it has more to do with a company trying to make a product that looks like Apple's. It leads to customer confusion and enough people have commented how when they walk into a store the sales person normally quips that the Samsung "Look's just like the iPhone, but... ". So it's pretty obvious to everyone, except for the FUD patrol, that there's enough similarities that it might be true.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915756)

Fair enough, but i still wonder if people take you less seriously when i inform them that you're a revolting little apple fanboy - known to lust after steve jobs' wrinkled old pecker with a voracity that would make most blush and retreat back to their parents basements?

factual errors (5, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915430)

First, there are so many [googleusercontent.com] lawsuits [nytimes.com] among mobile companies that a single extra one isn't going to have a chilling effect. All of these companies have enough cash that the cost of fighting a lawsuit alone will not hurt them (a big judgement might be a different story).

Secondly, MIcrosoft licensing costs aren't very much for Windows Phone 7. Estimates of licensing costs are between $5 and $15 on a phone that, with a data plan, ultimately costs thousands of dollars. Or, in the case of Nokia, Microsoft is paying Nokia to use it. $5 is still a cost, but it's not the reason people don't like WP7.

Then the article gets plain idiotic. It says Apple makes money on hardware, not on their OS. But this is true of every single Android phone as well.

The next factual error is a surprising one, but still serious. Look at the numbers of iOS vs Android devices [comscore.com] . There are a lot more people using iOS than Android (note the figures include tablets). Surprising, but if you're going to write a tech journal you should be on top of this kind of thing.

Finally there is no reason to question why Apple is suing. It's about money. Just like every single other lawsuit in the mobile space. They all think they can get some extra money by suing, so they do.

Innovative competition. or ... (0)

Jerry (6400) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915468)

using the law to extort competition?

Obviously both Apple and Microsoft found that the Mafia wasn't wrong, the extortion business is profitable.

Re:Innovative competition. or ... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915692)

using the law to extort competition?

Obviously both Apple and Microsoft found that the Mafia wasn't wrong, the extortion business is profitable.

"Damn, that's a nice cell phone you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it."

Quality will win (1, Insightful)

Andy Smith (55346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915506)

I can only speak for myself but I don't think Android will go the distance. The quality isn't there. I jumped from Apple to Android a year ago, knowing that Android was in its infancy but expecting it to mature and improve. It hasn't. Yes some things have changed but for the most part it all feels a bit flimsy and incomplete, in my opinion. When I got my iPhone, three years ago, iOS was a more solid product than Android is today. (Of course iOS wasn't as feature-rich, but it was more polished, and nowadays it's catching up on features.) My blunt feeling about Android is that it proves the validity of Apple's locked-down approach: Apple has a solid, stable product, whereas Android has become fragmented and unreliable. I hope everyone else who jumped to Android is loving it and continues to do so, but for me, I'll be knocking on Apple's door again in the not too distant future. All the law suits are silly -- products should compete on quality and price, those are the realms in which consumers make our choices.

Re:Quality will win (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915710)

I can only speak for myself but I don't think Android will go the distance. The quality isn't there. I jumped from Apple to Android a year ago, knowing that Android was in its infancy but expecting it to mature and improve. It hasn't. Yes some things have changed but for the most part it all feels a bit flimsy and incomplete, in my opinion. When I got my iPhone, three years ago, iOS was a more solid product than Android is today. (Of course iOS wasn't as feature-rich, but it was more polished, and nowadays it's catching up on features.) My blunt feeling about Android is that it proves the validity of Apple's locked-down approach: Apple has a solid, stable product, whereas Android has become fragmented and unreliable. I hope everyone else who jumped to Android is loving it and continues to do so, but for me, I'll be knocking on Apple's door again in the not too distant future. All the law suits are silly -- products should compete on quality and price, those are the realms in which consumers make our choices.

I've been running Cyanogenmod for a couple years now, and I couldn't go back to the stock firmware. If nothing else, Steve Kondik and his crew have demonstrated that Google could certainly have done better. To be fair, Google has supported him in his efforts, and a lot of what Cyanogen does goes back into the AOSP. Pretty much how you would hope a major open-source project would work.

My problem with Apple and IPhone has nothing to do with the technology or the operating system ... it's that I don't like who I'd have to thank for it. I also don't want anyone telling me what I can and cannot do with that personal computer in my shirt pocket. I wouldn't accept that for my desktop machine or my laptop, and I fail to see why I should sit still for that kind of treatment when it comes to my smartphone.

Re:Quality will win (3, Interesting)

flithm (756019) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915826)

I recently ditched my iPhone for a Nexus S; which was purely because I was so fed up with my old carrier that I was willing to "downgrade" my phone to switch companies.

I was shocked to find that Android is just a better system. Sure there are things that iPhone wins on, but overall Android takes the cake.

Consumers don't give a **** if it's open, or about the business strategy. Android is winning because it's better.

Maybe you haven't tried 2.3... it's leaps and bounds ahead of 2.1.

Did the author do any research? (4, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915514)

Here's the problem: it's not clear that anyone has ever won a "look and feel" lawsuit. (The legal term is "trade dress.")

Did the author did any research into this statement because Apple has won a "trade dress" lawsuit against eMachines [wikipedia.org] back in 1999.

Nor should they. Fast-following and imitating is a big part of what makes free markets work. It helps competition and helps bring innovations to consumers faster.

There is a difference in copying functionality and copying design. I think if Honda or Toyota were to make bubbly sedans that look very much like the old VW Beetle, VW would have a problem with it even though their current Beetle is no longer as bubbly.

It's the same reason why Microsoft is suing makers of Android phones: to give Android a price.

If that were the case, MS would have sued all Android makers but they didn't. They only went after former customers who abandoned them for Android. If I were to guess the purpose of MS, it would be to keep a place in the market. MS competes directly with Android as makers can pick Android over WP7 when making a phone. MS doesn't want to be left out of any maker's lineups. Apple does not compete directly with Android because Apple sells hardware and the software.

Additionally, Android phones often compete with each other and WP7 on pricing. Most likely, Apple doesn't really care about what Android costs as they are making tons of money anyways. What is the term around here: Android phones are a race to the bottom?

Also if that was the reasoning behind the lawsuit, Apple would have sued more than Samsung for this reason. Why didn't Apple sue other makers over their Android phones for trade dress? Also Apple would have sued Samsung for more than the Galaxy line of products as Samsung sells other Android products. The question then is why Galaxy.

If you look at the Galaxy line, it is the line that looks most like Apple products. Whereas other makers and other Samsung models have different bevels, tapers, corners, etc, the Samsung i9000 specifically looks a lot like the iPhone when both are powered off. Take a look the comparison between a Samsung Galaxy and a Samsung Wave and a HTC D2 [specphones.com] . Now compare a Galaxy vs iPhone [redmondpie.com] . When powered on, the UI is very similar. Again other makers and models used different UI themes, icons, layouts, etc [smarttouchphones.com] . The Galaxy is very similar [socialblogr.com] to the iPhone.

Will Apple win and how long will this lawsuit go on? I don't know if Apple will win, but at the very least, Samsung's next Android phone will likely not look anything like the iPhone 4 which is probably what Apple wants.

lawsuits are $$ (1)

cinnamon colbert (732724) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915538)

This cuts both ways; true, apple has a huge pile of cash, but they have limited time for senior management.
And if Samsung starts lawsuits in Korea, apple gonna be at a disadvantage.
In any event, does anyone in this thread have any idea how much a lawsuit costs, compared to say, S Jobs compensation, or the amount that Apple spends on marketing or some other number that puts cost into perspective ?
As anon once said, a hundred million here, a hundred million there, pretty soon it adds up to real money

Re:lawsuits are $$ (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915722)

As anon once said, a hundred million here, a hundred million there, pretty soon it adds up to real money

Senator Dirksen.

Re:lawsuits are $$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915744)

I heard H Kissinger., in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a billion here, a billion there.....do you have an authoritative source ?

That has been among some reasons... (2)

cthellis (733202) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915558)

...but the biggest part of the lawsuit against Samsung specifically has been over TouchWiz, which isn't associated with adding an "Android cost" at all, since it's only Samsung's UI deal. Apple has also gone after HTC, and one wonders if they just expected an easier resolution in the wake of the Microsoft/HTC licensing agreement. Nokia sues Apple and gets counter-sued right back. Mainly, it's THE sector of computing showing exponential growth, so alla them big companies gonna be leveraging for position. And that means lawsuits be flyin', yo.

double whammy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915572)

He implied that Apple Inc. is taking an inordinate amount of time and attention away from Samsung’s foundry unit-a possible reason why TI is upset.

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4214774/Upset-TI-slams-Samsung-s-foundry-efforts

That's one way of looking at it... (2)

mr_lizard13 (882373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915794)

...but there's no denying the Samsung devices mentioned in the lawsuit borrow heavily from the iPhone's design. Right down to the icons- the stock Android icons were replaced with icons that look exactly like the iPhone ones.

Whether or not that's illegal though, I'm not sure. Apple reckons it is, and I guess the courts will decide.

Here's a question no-one asks... (1)

biglig2 (89374) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915802)

... what do you think Apple want to be the market leading phone?

iPhone, for sure, but they know that's never going to happen because they'd have to cut their margins too much. Hell, it's questionable whether they could even make enough to get to number one. So it has to be something else, right?

So, do they want something innovative, like WM7? (I may be an Apple Fanboi but I'm a rational fanboi, and WM7 is really good.)

Or something well established and proven to be rock solid, like BB? (Ok, so the company has gone mad, but you can't beat an old-school BB for messaging)

Or do they want something that's a cheap iPhone knock off?

Because if someone says "this cheap iPhone knock off sucks", there's a pretty obvious response isn't there? "Have you thought of upgrading to the real thing?"

"Real Motive"? (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915806)

The only motive Apple needs, is their fiduciary duty to protect the value of the design work they've done. As a shareholder, I expect Apple to go after cloners with both barrels.

-jcr

Android may now have a price -- but it's too late (1)

pem (1013437) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915832)

Vendors are making money hand over fist with Android.

Big vendors are making money hand over fist with Android.

Big vendors who are used to inevitable patent fights are making money hand over fist with Android.

Big vendors who have patents of their own are making money hand over fist with Android.

While the final price of Android won't be known until the dust settles, it's not going to be high enough to do Apple, Microsoft, or Oracle any good.

Is Apple Evil? (3, Interesting)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915872)

In just over one year:

Apple iPhone illegally tracks users - April 2011
Apple suee Samsung over "rectangle with rounded corners" - April 2011
Apple sues Amazon over the phrase "App Store" - March 2011
Apple hides and denies iPhone-4 defects - June 2010
Apple sues HTC over Android - March 2010

Not that any of this is new for Apple. Remember Apple's "look and feel" lawsuit against Microsoft, about 20 years ago?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?