The Real Reason Apple Is Suing Samsung 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.
Yes, and? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
it is why (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
the legal system as a weapon (Score:4, Insightful)
> 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.
Nice conspiracy theory, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
...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:the legal system as a weapon (Score:5, Insightful)
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:I thought Apple and Samsung were friends (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
The real real reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nice conspiracy theory, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Money off hardware? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:it is why (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
factual errors (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Step 2 (Score:2, Insightful)
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]
Quality will win (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Did the author do any research? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:it is why (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Yes, and? (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Step 2 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:aplle is the shit (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I am a kernel hacker but not all my computers are running custom kernels, far from it. That is because for almost all my machines a standard kernel is perfectly adequate. However, this has not always been the case. From time to time I have had hardware issues that required kernel customization in some way, typically backport of a driver or a driver compiled from vendor source. And of course there are kernels that I compile and install for experimental and development purposes. The fact that I am able to do this is very important. For one thing it allows me to update devices that would otherwise become obsolete and useless. And the fact that other people are able to do it is even more important because I benefit from the work they are able to do.
Re:Step 2 (Score:5, Insightful)
Desperate?
Am I the only one that caught the fact that Apple is just had YET ANOTHER record quarter?
The fact that Android—which is available on more networks and being built in more price ranges by more manufacturers—is outpacing iOS isn't some kind of surprise. You don't need to own a majority of the market to do well. They were doing well before the iPhone came out without owning a majority of any market they were in.
Are they playing rough, yes. Desperate? http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/21/nokia-apple-idUSLDE73K12P20110421 [reuters.com]
No, not really. The "real" reason Apple is suing is because they are HISTORICALLY litigious. There's no sales conspiracy needed. It's not some final desperate act. It's standard operating procedure for Apple and has been for years.
Re:Sorry, the theory is perfectly sound (Score:4, Insightful)
What if Android gets about 70% of the market, and Apple starts losing iOS developers?
Well Apple can always stop making products. No one says Apple will make the same products forever. They stopped making printers when HP and others got big. They stopped making consumer monitors. They only make professional grade monitors now.
You would have to be a complete fool to think that Apple does not feel threatened by a more open, less expensive, technology.
Threatened might be a strong word. Here's how I see things. In computers, Apple still is small compared to PCs. Are they threatened by Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc? Or do they still make their computers regardless of their competitors. In other products that they make, they make money even if they don't have the biggest market share like wi-fi routers, keyboards, mice, etc. Now they have adjusted their product lines with changing times. They stopped making XServes, for instance. I think that Apple has to keep an eye on their competitors like everyone else.
The other thing is that Android does not compete directly with them. It competes directly with WP7 because Apple will never license iOS to the like of LG, Motorola, etc. Also while Apple may lose out some sales to Android, Android runs the entire range of smartphones while Apple only wants to compete in the high end of the market.
Re:Yes, and? (Score:4, Insightful)
The subtle distinctions in UI are another red herring. It's like Apple's claim of the iPad form factor. Because it has round edges, it must be patentable, right?
Apple is desperate to keep their stock price high, and that means entrenching themselves in their beachheaded markets. Fight fight fight. Use the fanboi pawns to astroturf. Litigate every meaningless shred of newness as IP. They learned this from a long line of computer companies going back nearly 50yrs now.
These 'crises', too, will pass.
MeeGo is inventive as is WebOS. But I'm guessing that HP has non-aggression pacts with several of the other companies dating back from the old days, and their acquisition of Palm. Intel desperately wants to play, too.
The problem is: you can build your own proprietary OS from BSD roots and invest a lot of money, or you can get a GPL license derivative (Android) and go with that at a much cheaper cost. Apple's now paying the price for making their deriviations of the Darwin tree more proprietary.
Re:Yes, and? (Score:4, Insightful)
What color is the sky on your planet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm...no. [wsj.com] The reality is almost the exact opposite of your claim. Devices powered by iOS --iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad-- are in fact outselling Android devices by 59% (37.9 million to 23.8 million). The summary also makes the same claim, that "Android is surging past iOS in marketshare", but it's as wrong as you are. Android-powered smartphones are outselling iOS-powered smartphones, but that's collectively; no single manufacturer even comes close to Apple. The iPhone is far and away the best-selling smartphone on the market.
Android proponents (I won't be disrespectful and call them "fanboys") and lazy journalists love to point out the fact that Android is outselling iPhone, but that's disingenuous; they're comparing a platform to a single device. In both platform-to-platform and device-to-device comparisons, Apple is still wa-aay ahead of the competition. At the end of 2010, Android had the largest smartphone market share at 33.3%, Nokia was second with 31%, and Apple third with 16.2% of the global market. Apple's smartphone market share translates to 4.2% of the total market for all mobile phones, and yet Apple is reaping 51% of the total profits of the entire mobile industry [asymco.com]. And they're doing it with variations of a single device. That fact certainly gives the lie to the claims that the iPhone is "dead in the water" [businessinsider.com]. If these jaw-dropping numbers demonstrate that Apple is "getting desperate", as you claim, then I'm sure their competitors would love a big helping of the desperation they're imbibing.
Apple haters may have their reasons for disliking Apple, but they need to make a reasoned case if they hope to be taken seriously. Blithe disregard for the facts, and trumpeting bizarre assertions as fact, despite all evidence to the contrary, certainly doesn't help their cause. It only lumps them into the same category of fruit loop as the "birthers".
Re:Doesn't make sense (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not a question of whether anyone "would have" thought of it. It's a question of timing. The courts have been asked to judge whether Samsung has deliberately released a product that strongly reminds people of an iPhone, in order to encourage confusion between the two, and ride on the coattails of the enthusiasm the iPhone has garnered in the marketplace. Thank goodness the courts will be deciding this, and not J Random Slashdotter who didn't even care to read TFA before spouting off about "generic look-n-feel patents".
You see this sort of behavior with cheap knock-off manufacturers all the time, and the behavior is damaging to consumers, disruptive to the target company, and not innovative in any way. The only reason it happens as often as it does is because of the legal costs involved with fighting these parasites. It is beneath Samsung, or should be at least, and perhaps this lawsuit will slap some sense into them.
Re:Yes, and? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple is doing so much better than its competition, this article is delusional. Apple has always maintained the look and feel of their products as something unique to them. They created it, why should other companies be allowed to copy them? They can come up with their own unique designs. This lawsuit fits perfectly with this idea. No need to project some sort of desperation scenario.
Also, the article is factually incorrect when it states Android is surging past iOS in market share (iOS maintains a significant lead over Android, and always has, although on Slashdot ignorance is bliss, so I fully expect some replies from people ignorantly claiming this isn't true), and Apple's market share is increasing, and their revenues are increasing, and their profits are increasing. They are the most financially successful cell phone maker on the planet. They do not fear Google's business model. Why would they when their own is working so well? Not just working well, but working significantly better than that of anyone else?
This article is just the same old uninformed nonsense you expect from people who don't understand that the reason people make money is to buy things. Just because something is free (or "less than free") does not mean people will want it, nor does it mean that people won't pay more for something else. Store shelves wouldn't contain name brands if people always chose the cheapest option.
iOS far outsells Android, yet clearly Apple's business model is doomed? Brilliant!
Re:Yes, and? (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple is doing so much better than its competition, this article is delusional. Apple has always maintained the look and feel of their products as something unique to them. They created it, why should other companies be allowed to copy them? They can come up with their own unique designs. This lawsuit fits perfectly with this idea. No need to project some sort of desperation scenario
Don't kid yourself. Apple did not create the idea of a device that is rectangular with rounded corners in shape. The idea is not unique or innovative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA
The Prada phone did not inspire the iPhone, the iPhone did inspire Samsung.
But more to the point, don't kid yourself. Apple's argument isn't simply that the phone is a rounded rectangle.
Also, the article is factually incorrect when it states Android is surging past iOS in market share
Don't kid yourself, Android is a huge threat to Apple. Android is growing like wildfire. Worthwhile Android tablets are just coming out. Apple may be selling all they want now, but what about next year, and the year after that? Of course companies like Microsoft, and Apple, feel threatened by a more open, and less expensive, alternative. It is a lot easier to kill off a competitor when that competitor is in it's infancy, than to wait until that competitor "grows up" and has more significant market share, and mind share. This is a case of baby stabbing - MS has been famous for the tactic for a long time.
Apple isn't suing Google, or Android in general, they are suing one Android handset and tablet maker for making their handsets and tablets too similar to how Apple's look. In their suit they make the point very clearly that Samsung should come up with its own design. There's no reason to copy Apple so closely.
This isn't a "baby stabbing" scenario. All Samsung has to do is come up with something not so clearly a copy of Apple. That's all. They won't have to pay Apple, they won't have to stop making Android phones or tablets, they can come up with the very best Android devices they want. All they are being asked to do is not copy Apple's design.
"Baby stabbing" would be if Apple was trying to get Samsung to stop making Android devices altogether. But Apple is only telling Samsung to come up with their own baby.
Re:it is why (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh come now, you really believed Steve Jobs when he said Apple always wanted DRM free music? you think it was really the music industry against it?
Bullshit. Amazon and eMusic had fuck all bargaining power on DRM because Apple held the market and included DRM, so why if the music industries were so for DRM would Amazon and eMusic have been able to bargain for DRM free music stores when Apple, with all it had provided to the music industry couldn't?
I believe Steve Jobs lies at least once in every single press conference, whether it's lies about iOS device sales vs. PSP/DS sales last year, whether it's lies about the root of the iPhone 4 problem (flawed design), or whether it was the DRM thing, he lies and lies and lies. DRM was yet another lie.
You only have to look at how strongly Apple applies DRM to many other facets of it's business to see that Apple was the clear driver of DRM in music, and the reality is that Apple only dropped DRM when the competition- Amazon and eMusic started taking an ever increasing share of their profits- Apple was left with no choice because now it had competition.
DRM is fundamental to Apple's business model, it relied on it with the Apple to tie people into the platform, and it relies on it to a lesser extent now with it's newer devices. It's relies fundamentally on the fact that if people buy things through iTunes then they're going to find it much more difficult to use their content with other devices. This is why Apple started shitting bricks and threw a hissy fit when Palm decided to pretend to be an iPhone to properly sync with iTunes- Apple knew if that door opened, it would then have to compete entirely on merit, and would lose it's long held advantage of artificial forced user lock in.
Apple has never played fair, and it's not about to now.
Re:it is why (Score:4, Insightful)
Pennies? Apple is Samsung's second largest customer (Sony is #1), with Apple amounting to something in the neighborhood of 4-5% of their revenue, IIRC. You don't generally give the finger to a customer that big, even if they gave you the finger first.
I've been quietly wondering if this is just the public side to a private disagreement in the boardroom - perhaps Samsung is trying to raise flash or other component prices for Apple, or Apple wants to negotiate for lower prices than they already have. And, of course, if they get what they want, maybe this whole lawsuit nonsense will disappear too. And if their lower component price is disguised as a patent license from Apple, all the better to use as ammo against other companies who use Android.