Samsung on Apple Peace: "The Ball's in Their Court"

Status
Not open for further replies.

kartu

Distinguished
Mar 3, 2009
959
0
18,980
0
Dear Lucy Koh,

thank you, for not letting Samsung show its F700 to the jury.

Mr Steve J. prmised to spend last penny on "thermonuclear" war on Android. So guess what are the chances.

In other news, in UK Apple had to publicly apologize for what your court awarded Apple more than a billion of "damages".
 

geost91gr

Honorable
Sep 6, 2012
30
0
10,530
0
No, such peace is not good for the market. It's corporate competition like this that leads to better technology and lower prices, despite the quarrel over patents.
 

Kami3k

Distinguished
Jan 17, 2008
990
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]kartu[/nom]Dear Lucy Koh,thank you, for not letting Samsung show its F700 to the jury.Mr Steve J. prmised to spend last penny on "thermonuclear" war on Android. So guess what are the chances.In other news, in UK Apple had to publicly apologize for what your court awarded Apple more than a billion of "damages".[/citation]

Pretty much every case worldwide, Apple has lost. And yet only in the USA do they win, and it's under very curious circumstances.

Jury Foreman lying to cover up obvious biases he would have, devices Samsung has to pay for infringing even though the Jury even said they didn't.

I say the Foreman be arrested for lying in court and the Judge be disbarred.
 

widj

Distinguished
Aug 31, 2007
21
0
18,510
0
I wish we could force them to make peace, because at the end of the day, we pay for their disputes
 

SAL-e

Distinguished
Feb 4, 2009
383
0
18,780
0
This report is a bit inaccurate. The judge Hon. Lucy Koh is the one asking for peace, but after reading the transcript of the court debate I would say that both Apple and Samsung are not ready to settle. Only difference that Samsung is willing to talk, but Apple have no intention even to talk. The Apple lawyer admitted in open court that Apple has lost the fight in the market place and they will not accept peace unless Samsung is driven out of the market by the court.
So, Take a popcorn and lets wait for the case to move to Federal Appeal court.
 

Marcus52

Distinguished
Jun 11, 2008
619
0
19,010
9
[citation][nom]geost91gr[/nom]No, such peace is not good for the market. It's corporate competition like this that leads to better technology and lower prices, despite the quarrel over patents.[/citation]

I'm all for competition, but I'm not sure these law suits are really competition. Good competition is producing the best product you can for a price people are willing to buy it at. If the lawsuits are really legit, that's one thing, but if they aren't, then the company that brings the suit should be in for possible sanctions and fines.

The judge is right on this: customers are sick of the lawsuits. I think this is hurting Apple more than Samsung.
 

sharksman

Distinguished
Dec 5, 2008
14
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]SAL-e[/nom]This report is a bit inaccurate. The judge Hon. Lucy Koh is the one asking for peace, but after reading the transcript of the court debate I would say that both Apple and Samsung are not ready to settle. Only difference that Samsung is willing to talk, but Apple have no intention even to talk. The Apple lawyer admitted in open court that Apple has lost the fight in the market place and they will not accept peace unless Samsung is driven out of the market by the court. So, Take a popcorn and lets wait for the case to move to Federal Appeal court.[/citation]
With two of the main patents used in this case being recently invalidated, and the foreman scandal, it may be in Apple's interest to settle.
 

ericburnby

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2010
636
0
18,980
0
Posturing by Samsung to try and make them look like the good guys.

It was Apple who approached Samsung. Twice, the second being a personal visit from Jobs. As if that weren;t enough Google also warned Samsung about copying Apple.

BUt you idiots don;t want to listen to facts and will continue to assume Apple is evel. I bet you'r teh same people who used to hate Microsoft years ago or even IBM before them (if any of you children are old enough to remember).
 

techcurious

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2009
228
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]ericburnby[/nom]BUt you idiots don;t want to listen to facts and will continue to assume Apple is evel. I bet you'r teh same people who used to hate Microsoft years ago or even IBM before them (if any of you children are old enough to remember).[/citation]
Damn.... You've got so much rage, you can't even type right anymore... better get it under control old timer, before your old heart gives out on you! You do want to live long enough to witness the death of your beloved Apple don't you?
 

SAL-e

Distinguished
Feb 4, 2009
383
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]sharksman[/nom]With two of the main patents used in this case being recently invalidated, and the foreman scandal, it may be in Apple's interest to settle.[/citation]

No, I don't think so. There are many reasons why the judge will not invalidate jury verdict, but those facts, that you mention, will be used at the appeal proceedings.
 

sam buddy

Distinguished
Nov 29, 2011
30
2
18,535
0
[citation][nom]ericburnby[/nom]Posturing by Samsung to try and make them look like the good guys.[/citation]

Samsung is not willing to settle, they only aggree to talk. They're just not being totally negative and stupid.

[citation][nom]ericburnby[/nom]It was Apple who approached Samsung. Twice, the second being a personal visit from Jobs. As if that weren;t enough Google also warned Samsung about copying Apple.[/citation]

So, what you're actually saying, is that S. Jobs himself visited Samsung to deliver his "thermonuclear" threat personally. It makes sense, because face to face and behind closed doors, you can bring your true self out, no need to hide from the public as you do any other day. For a minute, I thought you ment S. Jobs went there to settle.

And, as you imply, Samsung had to stop making phones because of this visit. Why is that?

a) So Apple can have their way (read: monopoly) and sell more phones?
b) Because Apple invented round edges?
c) Because Apple wants Android to disappear, but would not go directly against its maker?
d) Because Samsung is the world's no 1 handset maker?
e) Because the patet system sucks?

Correct answer: All of the above.

[citation][nom]ericburnby[/nom]BUt you idiots don;t want to listen to facts and will continue to assume Apple is evel. I bet you'r teh same people who used to hate Microsoft years ago or even IBM before them (if any of you children are old enough to remember).[/citation]

Woooow! Seriously, I don't think you're in a position to judge, or call anyone an idiot. Facts? Better get your own facts straight, you are more biased than Foreman has been. By the way, who might the people that hated Microsoft or even IBM before that, be? Let me guess... people like you?
You should post at some other place, where there are lots of fanboys who share your views and hatred.
 

ericburnby

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2010
636
0
18,980
0
I'm the only person on Tom's who actually talks about issues instead of everyone else who post things like "Apple needs to die" or "Apple sucks".

Case in point, sharksman stating the "two of the main patents used in this case" when in fact only one was actually part of this case. Another case in point: your stupid post that Apple wants Samsung to not make phones. Seriously? Is this the kind of garbage you actually believe? Bring up a few "made-up" points to try and support your argument? Pathetic.

Sorry, not going to leave. Too much entertainment value in rattling the cages of the haters. And it's so damned easy to do. Just post up a fact about Apple and watch the $hit fly. Ironic you telling me to find a another place to post when you haters can't even skip over the Apple threads on Tom's to post in ones about products you actually use. Hypocrite.

BTW I never hated MS or IBM. In fact, I usually stick up for them against the idiots (yes I can call someone who posts lies and mis-information an idiot). As I said, listening to you is just standing on the street corner listening to the hippies protest. Always gotta "stick it to the man".
 

back_by_demand

Splendid
BANNED
Jul 16, 2009
4,822
0
22,780
0
[citation][nom]ericburnby[/nom]I'm the only person on Tom's who actually talks about issues instead of everyone else who post things like "Apple needs to die" or "Apple sucks"[/citation]
No you don't, you have a belly full of loathing for anything that isn't Apple
...
Bore off
 

techcurious

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2009
228
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]ericburnby[/nom]I'm the only person on Tom's who actually talks about issues instead of everyone else who post things like "Apple needs to die" or "Apple sucks".[/citation]
And oh my gosh, you are also the only one modest enough to admit it.. wait, that doesn't really make any sense.. just like you!
Do yourself a favor and sell your Apple shares before it's too late.. ;-)
And stop hating on other people just cause they don't drink the same kool-aid as you or Steve Jobs did..
Very few people actually liked Steve Jobs... you see where I am going with this?
 
This is more a symptom of the patent//innovation environment than it is of individual companies using the system. There should be better vetting for patents/IP to ensure that there is no abuse to reduce competitors competitiveness. I like the FRAND idea. Maybe expand that to include more patents and also reject patents that are too board and vague.
 

ta152h

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
1,207
2
19,285
0
There can be no peace between these companies. They are major competitors, and Apple should try to destroy them and everything the possess. Samsung should keep trying to eat up their market share, and marginalize their products by not selling to them.

It's war, and it's capitalism. There's no reason for peace, and no way to avoid all-out war considering their product lines. It's only going to get worse when Apple starts making TVs.

Don't think this is some war between Germany and France either. Samsung is no France, and the winner is no foregone conclusion to everyone outside of France. They have plenty of technology, great products, and good financial backing as well. They can win it, but they need to stop surrendering before the major battle has been fought.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Samsung was making the iPhone and stole the idea. Everyone forgets after a couple years. The patent laws say that it is to a valid patent unless you protect it. Apple is doing what it is supposed to by chasing the folks that stole their tech ( and violated a manufacturing relationship ). Google's Schmidt was on the board of Apple and saw they were coming out with iPhone and made the android OS. They had to hurry so they stole the OS from Sun (java based). Apple thought they had trusted friends and found out that they had let the wolves into the hen house. All phone were pretty bad until Apple helped us all by setting high standards. Don't know how it should all end, but I can see why Apple feels about Samsung and Google.
 
[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]There can be no peace between these companies. They are major competitors, and Apple should try to destroy them and everything the possess. Samsung should keep trying to eat up their market share, and marginalize their products by not selling to them.It's war, and it's capitalism. There's no reason for peace, and no way to avoid all-out war considering their product lines. It's only going to get worse when Apple starts making TVs.Don't think this is some war between Germany and France either. Samsung is no France, and the winner is no foregone conclusion to everyone outside of France. They have plenty of technology, great products, and good financial backing as well. They can win it, but they need to stop surrendering before the major battle has been fought.[/citation]

War is perhaps the epitome of human ignorance. There doesn't need to be war for there to be competition. There's no need to "destroy" major competitors, especially considering the BS methods that Apple uses in their attempts to do so. If Apple is so out of ideas that this is what they have to resort to, then they'd be better off spending their legal expenses in R&D, something that actually has productive potential if done properly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS