Samsung Tries To Ban Import of iDevices To US 201
tekgoblin writes "The battle between Apple and Samsung has just heated up again. Samsung has filed a complaint to the International Trade Commission to ban import of the iPhone, iPad, and iPod products to the U.S. From the article: 'Samsung, the world’s second-largest maker of mobile phones whose Galaxy devices compete with the iPhone and iPad, claims Apple is infringing five patents, according to a filing with the U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington yesterday. The ITC, which can block imports of products found to violate U.S. patents, must decide if it will investigate Samsung’s claims.'"
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. Apple takes 57% of mobile industry profits, selling just the iPhone which has only 4% of the entire mobile marketshare. Everyone else, including the likes of Nokia, RIM, LG, Samsung, ZTC, etc. who sell the rest of the phones, gobble up the remaining
Re: (Score:2)
Lets see some data for such a claim.
If they really were such a big buyer they would be stuck with buying from samsung since they produce most of the flash.
Re:Dumb move. Really dumb move. (Score:4, Informative)
Exactly!
Also with Android devices outselling Apple devices the claim would't be true even if it was limited
to the mobile platform arena. There are 500,000 activation of android devices every day, and most
of them contain some Samsung parts, with emphases on the flash ram.
What Samsung would lose in iPhone sales blocked in the US they would easily recover
from their own phones sold in the US, as well as HTC, LG, Motorola, and twenty other
brands all using Samsung memory.
I've seen this claim posted before, but when you check out the facts its either dated
information or simply applied to a specific type of flash memory of a specific size.
Re: (Score:2)
Checking out the facts is always a good way to find the truth. But those darned facts can be slippery things, and sometimes they're not facts at all,
Comparing the sales of Apple devices against Android devices is a prime example. Apple is a manufacturer, Android is a mobile operating system. The names describe two different things; you can't find truth this way. It's like comparing the sales of Exxon and Honda and trying to prove some special value from those numbers.
Re: (Score:3)
So what? What does it matter if Apple is ONE manufacturer and Android is many?
(First off, the only people that mention that fact is Apple Fanbois, who seem to spout it incessantly).
It doesn't matter one bit. Its totally not germane to the situation at hand. Why exactly did you feel compelled to once again pontificate that apple is one company and Android handsets are made by many?
If Apple can't import their devices Android sales will go thru the roof even faster than they are now.
Many Android producers wi
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dumb move. Really dumb move. (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't matter. They have nowhere else to go, because only Sammy can handle their orders.
Besides, just because the 20 Android manufacturers do not individually exceed Apple doesn't mean much.
They easily exceed Apple do when lumped together. If iPhone were banned from import
they would still sell elsewhere Android would surge in the US. Those phones use just as much
memory as Apple.
So Sammy wins either way.
Like I posted Android is outselling iPhone today and Android tablets are just starting
to come on line from dozens and dozens of companies.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with concepts like "the largest" is that it doesn't convey any real information. In the chart provided with your link, the top ten are listed. Of those top ten, it appears that Apple accounts for about 20% or so. Now, there are thousands of outfits in the world that purchase these. Camera and camcorder manufacturers, car manufacturers etc. It seems quite unlikely that the top ten account for half the total market, they are quite probably a lot less.
What does this mean? It means that even if Appl
Re: (Score:2)
That is the problem with a commercial monopsony, they should be as equally illegal as monopolies, not that the US government has done anything to stop even the most blatant monopolies in the past decade.
Re: (Score:3)
Every single day? Really? I doubt that very much. First of all Sunday, in many parts of the world have closed shops on that day and other parts of the world close down shops on Fridays early.
Take your silly argument somewhere else.
Go read the facts: http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/google-activates-500000-android-devices-every-day-20110629/ [geek.com]
The tweet: https://twitter.com/#!/Arubin/status/85660213478309888 [twitter.com]
This is nothing to do with a platform war. Stop trying to make it into one.
The simple facts are that Apple has only a few device models, and an import ban hurts them in their biggest
market, but wouldn't make a dent in memory providers. What Apple doesn't sell, HTC, LG, Motorola, Sony-Ericcs
Re: (Score:2)
Well while Apple might activate about half that number of iPhones right now, they are growing into new markets and if you add in iPod Touches and the iPad which can be either 3G+Wifi or Wifi only then iOS comes out way ahead. If you look at install base then Android is not even close to touching iOS even if you ignored the heavy fragmentation of Android versions available for specific handsets.
Re: (Score:2)
Explain how Samsung makes money on the installed base.
This thread is about the sale of new devices and what an import ban would do to Apple. Installed base means nothing in that context.
Try to stay on topics. If you want to start a my phone is bigger than your phone jihad take it somewhere else. It's been done to death.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh... wait... So Apple wins if you compare phones AND mp3 players AND tablets? Seems a bit of a stretch, especially when the story is about... well.. phones. This ignores the fact that Android has absolutely nothing to do with the story, nor does the respective market shares of devices, or, sillier still, mobile OSs.
We were talking about Samsung still being able to sell memory to devices makers if this ban happens. Last I checked flash memory didn't care if it was in an Apple branded device or anything
Re: (Score:3)
Apple just overtook Sony as Samsung's largest customer (before that Apple was #2).
And Apple's already investigating TSMC and Intel for foundry services (for their A5/A6 parts). And Intel/Toshiba would love to sell Apple tons of flash memory (Toshiba already does). Intel's probably already got the capacity to ramp up production for Apple, and can always gr
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's such a huge player in the chip business, they can really distort the market if they wanted to
Being the largest doesn't actually mean that you are large. From the numbers posted in this thread it appears that Apple, at best, buys in the higher single digit number of OEM hardware. That is not big enough to distort the market.
You're right. (Score:5, Informative)
Lets see some data for such a claim.
If they really were such a big buyer they would be stuck with buying from samsung since they produce most of the flash.
Apple makes up 2.6% of Samsung's sales, Sony makes up 3.7% and Dell makes up 2.5%. [wikipedia.org]
Considering the market for NAND flash is very competitive now with every man and his dog making smartphones, memory cards and solid state drives, Samsung does not stand to lose 2.6% of sales if it cuts Apple off completely as there are other customers that buy the same products from Samsung.
It seems Apple needs Samsung products more then Samsung needs Apple as a customer. Suing them and hoping Samsung is not a vindictive company could be a really dumb move.
Re: (Score:2)
You are right, his numbers are off. Apple should be more like 4-5%. Whooptidoo, that changes his argument completely. Get a calculator or stop posting nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
The loss of Apple's account will devastate Samsung's semiconductor business
The numbers published says that this is not so. Apple account for sub-10% of the market total. Probably similar for Samsung. Samsung semiconductor can handle a sub-10% hit to their business. Apple would not be able to inflict such a hit though, anyone who supplies Apple in the future would have to get rid of some of their customers, who would have to turn to Samsung.
Re: (Score:2)
Please read a little bit before posting nonsense. Yes, Apple will be big with 7-8 billion worth of revenue for Samsung. Samsung yearly revenue is somewhere in the $180-$200 billion. In other words, Apple is 3-7%. Currency fluctuations account for more variability than does winning or losing Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple accounts for $7-8 billion of a total of $180-200 billion revenue. Samsung is obviously not going to like losing Apple, but currency fluctuations are more important to their bottom line than is Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Biggest SINGLE customer maybe, but the sum total of all the others would surely outweigh that
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, Samsung will lose out on future contracts if they play this game, I'm sure Apple will (ahem) investigate Toshiba's flash-ram parts next time around, but perhaps Samsung think this is likely anyhow, so if they've already burnt their bridges, why not go for it ?
Simon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Simon
Re: (Score:2)
I could very well be wrong, but pre-payment does not fit any Apple MO I have seen.
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess Samsung is schizophrenic now?
All companies with multiple divisions have MPD. Why would the guy in charge of phone sales care how much business the flash division does?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the apple fanbois can forget about AMOLED then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, if I had a customer as insanely and stupidly litigious as Apple, I wouldn't much care about losing them.
Re:Dumb move. Really dumb move. (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course Samsung will not succeed in obtaining the ban; it's not the goal. Everyone knows that it's going to end up as a settlement and a cross-licensing agreement, they're just haggling over who pays and how much.
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung knows they won't get this ban. That isn't their strategy. They just want a cut of the money. You must understand one thing to make any sense of civil corporate law: No one ever wants to go to court; they want a profitable settlement.
After all, if you were a Samsung executive, and you did not suffer from recent substantial brain damage, would you think that hordes of customers who've just been denied the chance to buy the iProduct they've been looking forward to buying are going to reward the comp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Samsung succeeds in obtaining this ban, then that's billions of dollars they lose in sales of flash memory to Apple. Who's in charge of that outfit?
They are negotiating.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple played their hand aggressively, but not necessarily "dumb".
Re: (Score:2)
Name some names, who else fabs this stuff and can at the drop of a hat come up with enough of it to replace all of Apples needs?
Commodity or not Samsung produces about 40% of the worlds supply of DRAM and NAND.
Re: (Score:2)
It is unlikely anything will be at the drop of a hat. Apple knows what they intend to do, and will already have alternate source contracts set up when they let Samsung know.
It also sho
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have any figures at hand, but I'm sure the USA is far and away Apple's largest market.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot more people *outside* the US than there are *inside* the US, and given how poorly the US economy is doing at the moment, the disparity in disposable income is less than it used to be as well.
Simon
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there's far, far more people outside the USA than inside, but most of those people are dirt-poor, and live without electricity. There's a growing number of middle-class people who can afford iJunk, yes, but even so, read your own article. As of 2010, 44% of Apple's revenue comes from the USA. That's not exactly a small amount.
The US is still their biggest market compared to AsiaPac, Japan, EU, and "everything else".
Re: (Score:2)
Your original quote was that the Usa was "far and away Apple's largest market". If they don't even have a majority share of the market, it's difficult to see how they're "far and away" the largest, and in fact if the market is defined as 'the Usa vs the rest", the Usa comes out second-best. When I categorise something as "far and away" the leader, I expect it to have pretty much an absolute majority share of whatever is under discussion. That is not the case here.
Also, if you actually read the article, you
Re: (Score:3)
Your original quote was that the Usa was "far and away Apple's largest market". If they don't even have a majority share of the market, it's difficult to see how they're "far and away" the largest, and in fact if the market is defined as 'the Usa vs the rest", the Usa comes out second-best.
Not sure what your marketing or sales background is, but I don't know a SINGLE International entity that considers "the non-US World" as a single market. It's almost always broken up as Europe or EMEA (Europe, Middle East, Africa), South/Central America, and Asia Pacific. And NONE of those markets are as big as the US market for Apple. In fact, I'm pretty sure Apple breaks their markets down that way as well.
Thus the original contention - the US is the biggest market for Apple - is correct. At least if
WTF? (Score:3)
This is just getting retarded, it's like watching a bunch of school kids bully each other then go to the teachers.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you know who started it, and you know whose ass is getting pounded.
I am loving this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in this case they are using their teachers to bully each other. The question is why are the teachers entertaining them.
The teachers are convinced, for the most part, that this is all a good thing for capitalism, the economy, their chances of having a job next term. They can't be bothered with a snowballing IP crisis.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the bigger problem being shown - no one wants to fix this bullshit IP/Patent Troll driven society.
How is Samsung Wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, *Nobody* can produce a smart phone without infringing on *Somebody's* patents.
You want IP reform? Take EVERY infringing product off the market. Let's see congress and the Executive branch do without their Blackberries and their iPhones. It is stupid to allow the thousands upon thousands of bogus patents to be used as a patent thicket to protect a few big companies. These are NOT inventions, in the sense viewed by the framers of the constitution. Most are little minor tweaks obvious to anyone working in the industry. But the costs to consumers in more expensive products and less competition and slowed innovation is huge and vast.
It is time we limit tech patents to 3 years. But regardless of the reform, reform is needed.
Patent Length (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
How would this help the Patent Office? If people patent less stuff, then the USPTO gets less fees. The whole point of the USPTO is to make money in fees, so the more patents filed and approved, the better. That's why they don't put much effort into making sure patents aren't invalid because of prior art, and zero effort into invalidating them because of obviousness to a practitioner of the art: rejecting a patent application means less money in fees for the USPTO, so why would they do that? Also, lots o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The USPTO might not keep all the fees over and above their operating budget, but the rest of the government certainly doesn't donate that money to charity.
Re: (Score:2)
How would this help the Patent Office?
Simple. With shorter term patents, companies would need to constantly patent random bizarre stuff all the time. This would equal more revenue for the Patent Office.
As to whether this would increase innovation, I still think companies are of the mindset that lititgation is more cost effective than innovation.
Re:How is Samsung Wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
These are NOT inventions, in the sense viewed by the framers of the constitution. Most are little minor tweaks obvious to anyone working in the industry.
I see this argument all the time but let's be real for a second here - in the smartphone category, there's a very distinct "pre-iPhone" era and "post-iPhone" era. It may seem obvious _now_ but, until the iPhone came along, it clearly wasn't that obvious because damn near nobody else was doing it. Now? After the iPhone? Yeah - everyone and their cousin is producing a smartphone that looks and acts like an iPhone so it all seems so obvious. Until the iPhone came along, however, it wasn't obvious at all.
Here - I'll make it even easier to understand with an car analogy. Well, a minivan analogy, to be exact. At one point, minivans had one sliding door on one side of the minivan. That's what they all looked like. All of them. It was a holdover from the minivan's utilitarian predecessor - the cube van. Then, one day, someone got the bright idea of putting a sliding door on the other side of the minivan as well. And, low and behold, everyone started doing it because "it's so obvious." But, until the first one appeared, it wasn't obvious - if it had been, everyone would have been doing it. It wasn't obvious at all.
While many people want to believe that the iPhone is not inventive and is just a collection of obvious ideas, that's not even vaguely true because, if it was obvious, there would have been a ton of iPhone-like phones already on the market. It wasn't until the iPhone came along that suddenly "it's so obvious" happened followed by everyone doing what Apple had done because, you know, "it's so obvious."
Sliding doors on both sides of a minivan. iPhone. Obvious, only after you see it done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you an idiot or something? Do you think someone's going to hold a seance with the long-dead framers of the Constitution, and ask them their opinion on the issue, then write an article on their paranormal findings for us to provide a citation?
This is easily the stupidest "[citation needed]" post I've ever seen on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Are you an idiot or something? Do you think someone's going to hold a seance with the long-dead framers of the Constitution, and ask them their opinion on the issue, then write an article on their paranormal findings for us to provide a citation? This is easily the stupidest "[citation needed]" post I've ever seen on Slashdot.
[Citation Needed]
Re: (Score:3)
He can make that claim the same way he can make any other claim that is nothing more than a personal opinion.
If he says that he believes Krishna, Jesus, and Odin would support a 3-year patent term, are you going to say "[citation needed]" for that too? Yes, it'd be pretty ridiculous to make claims about what gods think about patent terms, but it's obviously just an opinion, so the "[citation needed]" reply is just dickheaded.
It's not that hard to make claims of what the Constitution framers would want or n
The Patents (Score:2)
The patents in the ITC case are related to ways to transmit multiple services over a wireless network; the format of data packets used for high-speed data transmission; integrating Web browsing into a phone; a way to store and play digital audio; and viewing digital documents using a touch-sensitive display
I wonder how specific these patents are and how similar the Apple products are to them. Did they patent transmitting TCP/IP over wireless on a phone (something obvious), or do they have their own proprietary protocol (less obvious)?
I have a feeling there might be a lot of obscurity involved in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
FTFA:
The patents in the ITC case are related to ways to transmit multiple services over a wireless network; the format of data packets used for high-speed data transmission; integrating Web browsing into a phone; a way to store and play digital audio; and viewing digital documents using a touch-sensitive display
I wonder how specific these patents are and how similar the Apple products are to them. Did they patent transmitting TCP/IP over wireless on a phone (something obvious), or do they have their own proprietary protocol (less obvious)?
I have a feeling there might be a lot of obscurity involved in this case.
They use programs - which is a pretty evil thing when you get down to it.
Now if Apple used a couple tin cans and a string Samsung wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
How are they going to get an unbiased judge? (Score:4, Insightful)
They are going to have a hard time finding a judge or jury who isn't addicted to some Apple product methinks.
Re:How are they going to get an unbiased judge? (Score:5, Funny)
They are going to have a hard time finding a judge or jury who isn't addicted to some Apple product methinks.
we had to dismiss half the jury for texting during the trial.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. That's why the constitution and laws of the country allow judges and juries to overlook them all.
Re: (Score:2)
Gee Apple, how'd that lawsuit work out for ya? (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously, right off the bat when Apple sued Samsung the first thought that crossed my mind was "how is this going to work out", Samgung is simply going to counter sue the crap out of them. Then when it was noted that the iPhone contains Samsung parts, I just shook my head at the stupidity.
I'm sure the person at Apple that was getting pats on the back over this slick move is now picking the shoe parts out of their ass.
You know the extra delicious bit of irony with this new turn is that we have a Korean company suing an American company and filing for injunction to prevent the American company from shipping their products because they've outsource production overseas. HAhahaha. Globalization? How's that working out for you?
Apple expected this (Score:3)
Apple is gambling that Samsung would fold. (Score:5, Funny)
If you really think that Apple didn't know they used Samsung parts, and they didn't expect counter-suits, then you really don't understand businesses in general and Apple especially.
If you think Apple aren't betting that Samsung is not a vindictive company you dont understand law suits in general.
Apple are suing because Samsung smart phones are taking sales away from Apple phones. Apple derives over 50% of it's income from phone sales (a single product) so they've got a lot to lose if phone sales are threatened, namely their astronomical share price.
The suit was an act of a desperate company, if you cant see that you dont understand how tech business work. Those at the top dont worry about others, those who fall behind sue everyone (and that children, is how bubbles burst).
Samsung hold all the power here, if Apple becomes too bothersome, they'll just find a way to get rid of all their current contracts. Apple does not make up that much of Samsungs sales and the products they sell to Apple can be sold to many other customers (Sony, HTC, HP, Dell).
Re:Apple is gambling that Samsung would fold. (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple is suing because that's how the game is played at this point. Trot out your patents, so does the other guy, and settle on some cross-licensing agreement that (if you've calculated right) puts you in a better position than your competitor. Or encourages your other competitors to follow suit in licensing your patents. You clearly do not understand this level of "business chess". That's alright, but you just really ought to shut up about it until you learn more.
Share price is an arbitrary value without knowing market cap. If you actually meant "share price", you have no idea how the stock market works. If you actually meant "market cap", you might understand how the market works, but are laughably far from reality. AAPL is currently trading at a 15.92 P/E ratio, compared to a 19.32 P/E for GOOG, an astronomical 2,424.63 P/E for LNKD, and 10.15 P/E for MSFT. However, AAPL has (as of last quarter) nearly 10% of their share price in cold, hard, liquid cash. Assuming a zero growth rate, AAPL will have more cash on hand than its current share price in less than five years [bullishcross.com].
So tell me, please, how Apple's share price is astronomical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they wanted to copy the look and feel of the iphone they would have to remove everything but the app drawer from android.
The whole industry (Score:5, Informative)
Pretty much all the big players are being sued by somebody. That graphic's a little old, but it still illustrates just how messed up the patent system must be.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much all the big players are being sued by somebody.
What else are you going to do with all of those lawyers? Feed them to the sharks?
Re:The whole industry (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty much all the big players are being sued by somebody.
What else are you going to do with all of those lawyers? Feed them to the sharks?
Can we? Please???
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much all the big players are being sued by somebody.
What else are you going to do with all of those lawyers? Feed them to the sharks?
Can we? Please???
Please no!
I need more reactive targets for my shooting range...
Ouch, my foot... (Score:2)
They're on very slippery terrain. Apple could go to another manufacturer for their iDevices cpus and flash nand. It's not like Samsung is the only company manufacturing Flash memory or ARM processors. Samsung stands to lose a pretty big customer in that case.
-iPod, check :)
-iPod Touch, check
-iPad, check
-iPhone, check
-AppleTV, check (I don't think they sell those that much though.
Re: (Score:2)
It was 1 million Apple Tvs in December, not huge by Apple standards but it is still significant.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh. Why is it that maths is so hard for so many people.
Phones and the like is about 50% of Apple's business. Apple is 3-5% of Samsung's business. Apple took a gamble, assuming Samsung would fold. They did not, and this now only has the potential to hurt Apple. Sammy won't even get a small paper cut.
This is going to end with Apple dropping its law suits against Sammy, Sammy doing the same for Apple. Apple getting some nice consolation price from Sammy and Sammy taking a cut out of every iStuff sold. Good m
Trade (Score:2)
A South Korean company blocking the import of Chinese made products of a US company on the basis of US patents. Amusing. Also, it's not going to happen [macdailynews.com]. At least not this election cycle.
Attempted import bans are common (Score:2)
Filing a complaint at the US ITC is now part of the standard arsenal for software patent lawyers. Actual bans are very rare, a Qualcomm phone ban is the only one I remember, and the ITC has also said explicitly that bans are only possible at the request of product developers, not trolls.
That said, in terms of stock prices, market confidence etc. filing a complaint at the ITC is probably a win in itself in this legal system that encourages competitors to shoot each other rather than out-do each other.
http:/ [swpat.org]
How can such poorly worded patents be granted? (Score:2)
How could you even get a patent on "viewing digital documents using a touch-sensitive display"? It is a passive activity of the "user", not the system and there is no description on the system responding in any way to the "viewing".
It should have been rejected unless if they at least rewrote it as "displaying digital documents using a touch sensitive display" because that is something that the device actual does.
_Import_ of Apple products? (Score:2)
Good! Burn it down! BURN IT DOWN! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. They'll be burning $1000 bills in their fireplace, and you'll have change.
Re: (Score:2)
Making corporation have to improve a product in some way to advance the progress is exactly what patents are supposed to do.
Re: (Score:3)
Not even close. Patents are a system that allows society to learn about inventions and their inner workings in exchange for a monopoly for a limited period of time. Nothing more, nothing less. The arguments are that without them trade secrets would be used instead and inventions may never be produced or lost with the death of its inventor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not too bright (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Then why hasn't Samsung worked around the patents already?
This is especially true of the design patents. Pick another icon, for crying out loud. One of Apple's claims is the 'phone' icon is nearly identical - and they're right; it's nearly identical - more than close enough to violate the design patent. Same goes for the Weather, Text messaging, Mail, Notes, and Calendar app. (Seriously - does the calendar have to have a red bar on top exactly like Apple's, and even in the same shade of red?). Even the 'ph
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As far as solid state mass storage: Since Apple is buying their solid state storage directly from Samsung, it's difficult to argue that Apple is infringing on Samsung's solid state storage patents. It makes as much sense as Western Digital suing Apple because Macs use drive technology patented by WD, or Ford suing an auto parts store that carries Ford parts. There's not much hope of winning anything there.
For the wireless patents: I've read a review from a patent lawyer who stated that if the patents in q
Re: (Score:3)
Getting into a patent war with Apple is a really bad idea. Apple's portfolio can no doubt put Samsung out of business. Payback is a bitch here.
I dont think so,
It's not the number of patents but the type that counts. Considering Apple patents everything regardless of who invented it and Samsung patents actual innovations as well as almost all Apple patents are software and involve the words "with a phone/touchscreen" whilst Samsung corp owns a crapload of original hardware patents, Apple will quickly find out how badly a patent war with Samsung will hurt.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! Apple putting Sammy out of business? Apple is 3-6% of Sammy's business. Compared to Sammy, Apple is small potatoes (it's inflated market value not taken into account). If Sammy can only hurt phone sales, Apple is toast. Apple can not touch most of Sammy's business. I'm not sure how Apple could, for example, make a dent in Sammy's ship-building operations.
Re: (Score:3)
Sigh. Apple accounts for far less than 10% of Sammy revenue, and it wasn't really Sammy who sued Apple, they counter-sued. I am not sure Apple is the smart one here. Their phone stuff accounts for half their income. If Sammy loses all of Apple's business it will mean a lot less to them than the current currency fluctuations in the markets they operate in.