Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Apple

Tim Cook Never Wanted To Sue Samsung 197

Posted by Soulskill
from the can't-we-all-just-get-along dept.
colinneagle writes "While Steve Jobs' ire in regards to Android is well known, a recent report from Reuters relays that current Apple CEO Tim Cook never wanted to sue Samsung in the first place. 'Tim Cook, Jobs' successor as Apple chief executive, was opposed to suing Samsung in the first place, according to people with knowledge of the matter, largely because of that company's critical role as a supplier of components for the iPhone and the iPad. Apple bought some $8 billion worth of parts from Samsung last year, analysts estimate.' In various earnings conference calls, Tim Cook has repeated that he hates litigation, but has still toed the party line by exclaiming that Apple welcomes innovators but doesn't like when other companies rip off their intellectual property."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tim Cook Never Wanted To Sue Samsung

Comments Filter:
  • by Kenja (541830) on Friday February 15, 2013 @05:53PM (#42916395)
    Sorry, this excuse just doesn't fly with me. If the company he's supposed to be in charge of is doing things like suing competitors without his permission or knowledge, then he's a failure as a CEO.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15, 2013 @05:58PM (#42916439)

      Exactly. Even if the lawsuit went ahead due to momentum, as leader in charge of the company, wouldn't you be willing to work to end the lawsuit through settlements and get back to business? Why would you continue to press ahead, or even allow it to continue?

      This is just a BS blurb for public relations.

    • by JonathanF (532591) on Friday February 15, 2013 @06:13PM (#42916633)

      These lawsuits were started before Cook was CEO -- the point is that he basically inherited lawsuits that Jobs started.

      And while it's tempting to follow up with "he should just drop all the lawsuits," it's not that easy -- aside from spooking the public and investors, an exit from legal action wouldn't guarantee that others would do the same. Samsung has at least made some grandstanding that it will never, ever settle. That could just be talk, but Samsung isn't exactly known for its humility or compassion toward competitors.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15, 2013 @06:24PM (#42916777)

        Samsung is well known for cross-licensing intellectual property, and it's pragmatic attitude towards litigation. Apple not so much. Apple is, has been, and always will be the problem.

      • These lawsuits were started before Cook was CEO -- the point is that he basically inherited lawsuits that Jobs started.

        And while it's tempting to follow up with "he should just drop all the lawsuits," it's not that easy -- aside from spooking the public and investors, an exit from legal action wouldn't guarantee that others would do the same. Samsung has at least made some grandstanding that it will never, ever settle. That could just be talk, but Samsung isn't exactly known for its humility or compassion toward competitors.

        So basically what you are saying is that they are in the same position SCO was in, and so they have no choice but to keep up at it until someone sets up another Groklaw.com and they spend all their money and go out of business?

        • by jbolden (176878) on Friday February 15, 2013 @07:01PM (#42917211) Homepage

          How were they in the same position SCO was in? SCO was suing IBM for copyright infringement, and then later breach of contract for stuff that IBM had nothing to do with and where there was possible infringement they themselves (i.e. Caldera) was mostly responsible. SCO got rid of their entire technology team and made themselves a copyright troll.

          Apple was suing Samsung for Samsung products that Apple played no part in. Apple continues to be a major technology provider and innovator.

          One can agree or disagree with Apple's infringement claims, but the analogy with SCO is unfounded.

          • by tlambert (566799)

            How were they in the same position SCO was in? SCO was suing IBM for copyright infringement, and then later breach of contract for stuff that IBM had nothing to do with and where there was possible infringement they themselves (i.e. Caldera) was mostly responsible. SCO got rid of their entire technology team and made themselves a copyright troll.

            Apple was suing Samsung for Samsung products that Apple played no part in. Apple continues to be a major technology provider and innovator.

            One can agree or disagree with Apple's infringement claims, but the analogy with SCO is unfounded.

            They are both cases of intellectual property law out of control. They are both using the courts and intellectual property law to try to compete in their respective markets, rather than reaching an agreement and then going back and competing by building better product.

            • by jbolden (176878)

              SCO wasn't trying to compete when they launched the lawsuit. Their entire basis for the suit was that Linux had effectively rendered the IP of SCO worthless.

      • by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Friday February 15, 2013 @06:55PM (#42917149)

        And while it's tempting to follow up with "he should just drop all the lawsuits," it's not that easy -- aside from spooking the public and investors, an exit from legal action wouldn't guarantee that others would do the same.

        Oh, I don't personally believe that it is ever too late to end an armed conflict by peaceful measures. Cook could take the lead and arrange a closed doors settlement that would be acceptable to both parties. Apple could come out still with a "don't even think about messing with us" look. Samsung could partially maintain their innocence, although with an extremely contrite demur and admission they won't get into such a mess again.

        When the conflict gets to litigation, everyone except the lawyers lose.

        It doesn't take much courage to enter a conflict. It takes much character and leadership to end one peacefully.

        • When the conflict gets to litigation, everyone except the lawyers lose.

          No! No! No! there is often a winner, sometimes a very lucrative winner, the lawyers only get a small portion of the spoils, I'm don't care if lawyers are good or bad people, but pretending mega-corperation are victims to this occupation is a not credible. The truth is Apple won big against Samsung to the tune of 1 Billion Dollars [that goes to Apple], unfortunately *money* even if its a Billion Dollars is useless to Apple ...it doesn't know what to do with its $140Billion in cash it has doesn't know what to

        • by infinitelink (963279) on Friday February 15, 2013 @08:31PM (#42918131) Homepage Journal

          When the conflict gets to litigation, everyone except the lawyers lose.

          In a rare moment of defending lawyers, I have known lawyers that seek to settle disputes outside of court. One a family law lawyer who I would speak to, and who said, "I focus on the other side's attorneys, because most drag-out these disputes to rake-in fees at their client's expense, but all that does is impoverish both sides, work more animosity, and harm any children involved."

          Another is an insurance lawyer I know, who always seeks to avoid court, because people just get boned there. Otherwise though...yes, lawyers tend to equal self-serving, cynical scum.

      • by Xest (935314)

        Actually, for the most part, they didn't.

        I recall very clearly at the time pointing out that since Cook took over day to day running of Apple from Jobs it's strategy changed from innovation and competition to litigation and stagnation.

        It's not mere coincidence that it all changed when Cook got greater influence, and escalated after Jobs passed away altogether. I've never liked Steve Jobs, I thought he was a sociopathic, selfish twat in all honesty, but this sounds to be very much a case of Tim Cook trying t

    • by the_B0fh (208483) on Friday February 15, 2013 @06:15PM (#42916653) Homepage

      Do you people ever get out of the basement? In internal discussions, Steve Jobs said sue. Tim Cook said no. Steve Jobs overruled, and Apple sued.

      Why didn't Tim Cook want to sue? For fear of damaging supplier relationship with Samsung. Not because he thought Samsung didn't copy them.

      Keep that in mind. *THE LAWSUIT ALREADY HAPPENED.*

      Steve Jobs died. Tim Cook is now CEO.

      He has to decide - continue to sue, or kill the lawsuit. *THE LAWSUIT IS ALREADY ONGOING*.

      To kill the lawsuit means:
      1) Admit Apple was wrong.
      2) Gives more power to Samsung and others to copy Apple's look and feel.
      3) Supplier relationship with Samsung is still screwed
      4) Future negotiations with Samsung will be with a weaker hand.

      Which part of that equates to him not knowing Apple is suing Samsung?

      I cannot even comprehend how the hell you came by the idea that Tim Cook is not aware of any lawsuits (if nothing else, it's headlines all over the place).

      • by AmiMoJo (196126) * <mojoNO@SPAMworld3.net> on Friday February 15, 2013 @07:13PM (#42917325) Homepage

        The usual solution is to agree an "out of court settlement" where neither party admits fault.

        • by smash (1351)
          What's to say this hasn't been tred already?
        • The problem is once the first bullet is fired, you've got both sides litigating multiple issues accross multiple jurisdictions. Each side then has to consider the effect of any single case on the outcome of the others.
          Beyond that if Apple settles with Samsung, HTC will want to know the details for their defense against Apple and/or Samsung. Maybe Apple wants to play nice with Samsung because they are a supplier, but can't because it will hurt them in their case against another competitor.
          It's the corporat
    • by RazorSharp (1418697) on Friday February 15, 2013 @06:16PM (#42916667)

      Sorry, this excuse just doesn't fly with me. If the company he's supposed to be in charge of is doing things like suing competitors without his permission or knowledge, then he's a failure as a CEO.

      Jobs was still alive when the litigation started. . . if you had even read the first paragraph of the article you would know that (or if you had better reading comprehension skills, as your UID indicates you had a /. account when the lawsuit started and it was covered almost daily here for months).

      Cook may not have agreed with initiating the lawsuit, but once it was started it's likely he saw going through with it as the best strategic option. The damage had already been done, the best he could hope for was to win. Kind of like the Iraq war. It was a stupid idea, but once we toppled their government there was no turning back.

    • by kllrnohj (2626947)

      I think the claim is that the lawsuits were started by Steve Jobs, and now Cook is stuck running with it. It would be bad for him to abort a lawsuit that's in flight.

    • Sorry, this excuse just doesn't fly with me. If the company he's supposed to be in charge of is doing things like suing competitors without his permission or knowledge, then he's a failure as a CEO.

      Crap like this being modded "Insightful" highlights just how far /. has fallen over the years as a source for actually insightful discussion of geek topics...

    • by F.Ultra (1673484) on Friday February 15, 2013 @06:49PM (#42917085)
      He has no right to do with the company as he pleases, his job as a CEO is to run the company in the direction mandated by the board. And the board in turn is supposed to manage the company according to the will of the share holders.
    • The ball was rolling years before Cook was CEO. At the point he became CEO, the trial was mostly through, the money spent... You just lose face with the Court to back out now.

      For the most part, court proved Steve was right. There were written Samsung developer logs where they reviewed iPhone features and clearly choose to use the "iPhone way" versus the method in their previous devices... Samsung INTENDED to copy, as close as they could, while leaving room for lawyers. Toss in that they were using Androi

  • by Anonymous Coward

    That's what they all say.

  • by AmiMoJo (196126) * <mojoNO@SPAMworld3.net> on Friday February 15, 2013 @05:56PM (#42916425) Homepage

    "Apple welcomes innovators but doesn't like when other companies rip off their intellectual property"

    Okay, put your money where your mouth is. Remove the notification shade from iOS. You ripped it off wholesale from Android.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15, 2013 @06:03PM (#42916499)

      "Apple welcomes innovators but doesn't like when other companies rip off their intellectual property"

      Okay, put your money where your mouth is. Remove the notification shade from iOS. You ripped it off wholesale from Android.

      No, no, you don't iUnderstand it. They innovated that from Android.

    • by AmiMoJo (196126) * <mojoNO@SPAMworld3.net> on Friday February 15, 2013 @06:19PM (#42916711) Homepage

      Modded troll already huh? I am making a serious point. In computing everyone copies everyone else. In the world nothing is created in isolation. Apple has been shameless (the actual word Jobs used) when copying other people in the past. It's a good thing, progress is faster, we get better products.

      Can't have it both ways.

      • by bug1 (96678)

        Troll (-1) = Insightful (+1) * CounterIntuitive (0).

        Clearly moderation is broken.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Coolhand2120 (1001761)

      You don't understand. They don't like it when people rip them off . It's perfectly fine if they rip other people off. Their entire existence is based on ripping off other people's ideas and improving upon them, then trying to convince an ignorant public that they invented the concept in the first place.

      Take the smart phone for example. The educated people here on slashdot know that smart phones were around for more than a decade before the first iPhone, but if you ask the average man-on-the-street you

      • by jbolden (176878) on Friday February 15, 2013 @07:23PM (#42917409) Homepage

        The educated people here on slashdot know that smart phones were around for more than a decade before the first iPhone, but if you ask the average man-on-the-street you'll find they think the first smart phone was an iPhone.

        The 2007 rollout for the iPhone includes a rather lengthy comparison to other smartphones. So if this is true, it certainly isn't the result of Steve Jobs. Job's claimed that Apple invented the first multitouch smartphone using an animated interface. He never claimed to have invented the smartphone.

        there can be no greater irony than having the words "OS" in "OSX" when it's just a modified version of FreeBSD and unrelated to the previous versions of their OS line. If Apple had any intellectual honesty they would have called is MacBSD or something similar.

        FreeBSD started in 1993. The first version of NeXTStep shipped in 1988. I think both projects developed independently from Berkley. But if you want to assert copying at the core NeXTStep came first. As for the regents of California, boot an OSX machine in verbose mode.

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          FreeBSD started in 1993. The first version of NeXTStep shipped in 1988. I think both projects developed independently from Berkley.

          Both FreeBSD and NeXTStep are BSD 4.3-lite-based. NeXTStep got some code from BSD 4.3-lite and 4.4-lite at minimum, I'd have to look up to see all the times they got code from BSD. FreeBSD is part of the legacy of 4.4-lite. OSX is BSD atop Mach, using it as a HAL. Today, FreeBSD and OSX contain code from one another.

          • by jbolden (176878)

            I agree with summation. That's very different from GP's claim about OSX ripping off FreeBSD.

            Looking at the Family Tree
            BDS 4.3 begot NeXTStep, Tahoe and System VR4
            Tahoe begot Reno
            Reno befot BSD Net
            BSD Net begot 386BSD
            386BSD begot FreeBSD 1.0

            NeXTStep and FreeBSD 2.2 begot OSX Server
            OSX Server begot and FreeBSD 3.0 OSX Desktop.

  • by arbiter1 (1204146) on Friday February 15, 2013 @06:01PM (#42916471)
    Yet he is at the helm of the ship when mostly all the lawsuits from apple against Samsung started. He is just trying to save face in all the Bad PR apple has gotten over last couple years.
    • by arbiter1 (1204146)
      "Tim Cook has repeated that he hates litigation, but has still toed the party line by exclaiming that Apple welcomes innovators but doesn't like when other companies rip off their intellectual property" ^ Yet apple has done everything to kill off innovation of others that compete with them and ripped off a lot more intellectual property then anyone even knows.
  • by erroneus (253617) on Friday February 15, 2013 @06:09PM (#42916565) Homepage

    Just gonna repeat what everyone else is saying. This is ridiculous.

    Apple is getting a lot of negative press on their current legal activities. Their pattents are being eroded. Details of their cases are being foiled in courts around the globe. That billion-dollar judgement will not stand and it is simply unimaginable that the jury verdict will stand in light of the jury misconduct which definitely happened. The numerous cases brought and initially won using doctored/edited visuals for evidence is simply dirty.

    And the idea that the CEO didn't want to do this? Explain to me what a CEO does again?

    Apple is losing a lot more than cases and patent claims. They are losing their customers. I know, people will cite last years figures and reports to claim they are a reflection of today's and tomorrow's popularity figures. I just don't see it. Everywhere I look, the use of iPhone is decreasing. That's not to say people using Android are excited fans or anything. They're not. The excitement over touchscreen smartphones and fart-apps is over. Now it's about practical matters which matter to people; Cost, Apps, Usability, Restrictions and other considerations.

    Brand recognition is important to consumers for some reason. Apple's brand is being diminished. It is having an affect.

    • by the_B0fh (208483) on Friday February 15, 2013 @06:17PM (#42916685) Homepage

      Oct 2011 - Dec 2011, sold 37 mil iphones.
      Oct 2012 - Dec 2012, sold 48 mil iphones.

      Help me understand how is that "losing their customers"?

      Wait wait, are you one of those, "sure, we lose money on each sale, but we'll make it up on volume" kinda guy?

      • by Coolhand2120 (1001761) on Friday February 15, 2013 @06:58PM (#42917179)
        I think he means, losing market share. And they're bleeding market share like a stuck pig.
        • I think he means, losing market share. And they're bleeding market share like a stuck pig.

          No, Android is gaining market share faster than iOS which is not surprising when every mobile vendor from high end device makers to the lowest shitphone peddlers are pushing Android devices onto the market and Android has pretty much exterminated every competitor except Apple. This was kind of inevitable when Apple refused to compromise, release budget iPhone versions and compete with the lower end Android device makers in a race to the bottom. Considering the fact that Apple makes decidedly high end device

          • No, Android is gaining market share faster than iOS

            Yeah, that's another way of saying that Apple is losing market share. Those are customers that could have been Apple customers but for whatever reason they chose Android.

            I don't like OS monoculture, but when the goal of one of the players is to make an OS monoculture I would like to see them fail or at the very least become marginalized out of significance.

            • So complain about Google giving away Android. THAT is creating monoculture of old, buggy, unpatched devices. The Android story mirrors the rise of MS Windows far more than iPhone does.

              There is plenty of room for Apple at 25%-35% of the market. That's probably the way for them to remain at their high profit point as well. That is still a STAGGERINGLY HUGE amount of sales.

              If you want to complain about monoculture, complain about the piss poor offerings from Microsoft/Nokia and RIM/Blackberry... One of them

          • by swillden (191260)

            We are heading into a Mobile OS monoculture dominated by Google/Android to thundering applause from half the people on this forum.

            That's far better than a mobile OS monoculture dominated by the likes of Apple or Microsoft. Not because of anything about Google, but because Android is open. Should Google become too controlling, others can simply fork the OS, like Amazon has done.. For that matter the Ubuntu phone OS is arguably a fork of Android, since it's using the Android kernel.

            I argue that the world would be much better off if some flavor of Linux were the dominant desktop/laptop OS as well. An open monoculture is easy to diversi

            • We are heading into a Mobile OS monoculture dominated by Google/Android to thundering applause from half the people on this forum.

              That's far better than a mobile OS monoculture dominated by the likes of Apple or Microsoft.

              Nice try, but Android is a Samsung monoculture.

        • by Graymalkin (13732) *

          Equating market share to success is short-sighted and ultimately foolish. The Android segment of the market is dominated by low power phones and tablets that have out of date OS versions and no upgrade path. The people buying them don't buy much in the way of third party apps. To the Android platform these buyers are a black hole.

          The iPhone may have a smaller share of the quarter-over-quarter market but the platform is far healthier. People that buy iPhones and iPads buy apps and actually use their devices

      • by tuppe666 (904118) on Friday February 15, 2013 @07:01PM (#42917207)

        Oct 2011 - Dec 2011, sold 37 mil iphones.
        Oct 2012 - Dec 2012, sold 48 mil iphones.

        http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130214005415/en/Android-iOS-Combinid [businesswire.com]

        Compared to Androids

        Oct 2011 - Dec 2011, sold 85 mil smartphones.
        Oct 2012 - Dec 2012, sold 160 mil smartphones.

        Thats ignoring Apple are now selling more lower marking 4* Phones Apples market share.

        From the statement "iOS posted yet another quarter and year of double-digit growth with strong demand for the iPhone. But what also stands out is how iOS's year-over-year growth has slowed compared to the overall market." your right its better than losing all there customers...not good though.

        • For those unwilling/too lazy to do the math:

          Not counting alternate smartphone OS's like blackberry, windows, symbian, etc...

          The last quarter of 2011 Apple had 30% of the market
          last quarter of 2012 it had slipped to 23%.

          This is despite selling 30% more phones. Androids jumped 88%.

          That sort of growth in a year is insane. I don't think even the computer revolution ever matched those numbers.

          • http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23946013#.UR7MG5G3PGg [idc.com]

            You figures are not even close to being right. The link is the same as the other one I provided only its direct from IDC, but it includes a nice graph showing the various OS and how big their market share. Apple is a little confusing as its market share is feast/fast as their product launches have a huge effect on their sales. Next quarter Apple are not going to sell anything close to 48Million Phones, and their market share in that quarter

      • by blindbat (189141)
        It takes time for your customers to show up as lost. I have many macs in my household--they will not be replaced with more macs. I have an iPhone; my next phone will run android.
      • by erroneus (253617)

        They are losing their customers due to the continual conversion from Apple to Android. With every new iPhone device and tablet, customers are asked to buy something new. Increasingly, customers are choosing not to buy a new thing. This is true especially as Apple switched to a new interface for peripheral devices. The adapter isn't quite enough of an adaptation to keep their accessories viable. Also (http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/12/03/top-selling-iphone-5-flanked-by-strong-sales-of-legacy-iphone-

        • by the_B0fh (208483)

          Seriously, how does your brain work?

          They are losing their customers due to the continual conversion from Apple to Android. With every new iPhone device and tablet, customers are asked to buy something new. Increasingly, customers are choosing not to buy a new thing.

          You say the customers are asked to buy something new, but they are not buying the new thing. And this is conversion from Apple to Android? This doesn't even make sense, especially in face of the fact that 80% to 90% of iPhone owners say when they upgrade, they will upgrade to the next iPhone, but only 60% of Android owners say the same.

          This is true especially as Apple switched to a new interface for peripheral devices. The adapter isn't quite enough of an adaptation to keep their accessories viable.

          Evidence? Anyone who can pay $650 for a phone or $500 for an iPad can pay $20 for an additional cable or $10 for an adapter. Also, you

  • by hguorbray (967940) on Friday February 15, 2013 @06:10PM (#42916577)
    to be a Lumberjack!

    In the Forests of British Columbia, Leaping from tree to tree amongst the Larch, the Pine and the mighty Sequoia!

    -I'm just sayin'
    • Y'know, earlier today I read that headline and thought the same thing. But I decided it would be silly to post such a thing and I'm not having things getting silly.

      Nobody likes a good laugh more than I do...except perhaps my wife and some of her friends...oh yes and Captain Johnston. Come to think of it most people likes a good laugh more than I do. But that's beside the point. Now let's have a good clean story about Russian Meteors. [slashdot.org]

No hardware designer should be allowed to produce any piece of hardware until three software guys have signed off for it. -- Andy Tanenbaum

Working...