Apple Bringing Second Lawsuit To Samsung, Won't Wait For Appeal 239
sl4shd0rk writes "Hot on the heels of last year's Apple win over Samsung, Apple is geared up for its second attempt at knocking Samsung's alleged copy-cat products off the store shelves. District Judge Lucy Koh asked both parties if they could stay the new case while the first one goes up on Appeal. Apple denied citing a delay would "seriously and irreparably prejudice Apple." The company "will likely suffer a long-term loss of market share and of downstream sales". Samsung replied with a statement saying "Apple will be unable to meet its burden of proving infringement without resorting to the same improper 'representative product' strategy," [that shouldn't have been allowed in the first case.] Although some may think this is a good move for business on Apple's part, some claim the litigation is responsible for Apple's dipping sales and stock prices as well as Increased visibility of Samsung. In the end however, all this litigation is most likely going to be shouldered on the pocketbook of the consumer'"
I really wish I had a time machine. (Score:4, Interesting)
I really wish I had a time machine. So I could show this to the Apple fanboys in the 90s - back when if you pointed out ANY criticism of Apple you'd get mod'ed down to oblivion and a shitload of comments like - "bu..bu..but Microsoft!"
Listen folks, attaching yourself (identity) to anything, let alone some corporation's products, will lead to heartbreak.
*expecting some smug comments from FOSS people now.*
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Unappealing (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Cant compete... litigate (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft used their market power to create a monopoly, instead of creating better products. MS has been in decline for 10 or 12 years, and continues to create inferior products, yet still acts like a monopoly.
Apple has followed the MS model.
Apple is in a state of stagnation and decline, which was and is predictable.
The market for open technology products is swamping the closed technology markets, with the inevitable results.
Consumers will benefit in the end.
Re:what happened to not wanting to sue? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not wanting to sue to begin with was probably due to the PR involved and bad inter-company relations (Samsung used to supply... screens?). Having won the last lawsuit to the tune of $1B, means that while he didn't really support the orignal lawsuit he's perfectly ok with other money making courthouse shinanegans.
Re:Cant compete... litigate (Score:4, Interesting)
hrm... maybe I am... so let's check.
Can I intrest you in calls with a strike price of 650?
Re:Apple is over (Score:4, Interesting)
Right. In the same way that Exxon is over, though they too just don't know it yet.
Exxon owns resources. Exxon produces a *commodity*. Exxon sells the said commodity to wholesalers, and other places on long term future contracts.
To end consumers, Exxon is *not* a brand any more than Microchip.
On the other hand, Apple is a brand. Apple does not sell commodities - they sell end products. Apple does not own resources (or round corners, despite what they claim). Apple makes *gadgets* and it is all about brand.
Comparing Exxon to Apple is like comparing a farm to a corner store.
Apple can go under much quicker than Exxon.
Unless either of them come up with another way to make money after their huge cash cows are done.
Exxon does not have a huge cash pile. Exxon invests the cash pile and returns dividends to shareholders - the real owners of the said cash pile.
Apple, continues to make a larger cash pile for no reason. If they think they can just sit on that cash pile, then they are a real bad investment. No business, except for financials, should have large, unneeded cash piles, ever. Cash piles should be returned to their shareholders*
* - I personally favour end-of-year lump sum based on profitability (or lack there of) instead of a steady dividend. Business should keep around funds (and assets) to fund any downturns and investments, but they should not be hoarding cash without a purpose.
Re:If we had no abusive patent system (Score:2, Interesting)
The patent system defines the playing field. Apple is just playing in it like everyone else. They would not need these patents, and not even have a desire for them, other than this is how business is done with the bad patent system we do have. It's been long time to get rid of it.
Re:Apple is over (Score:4, Interesting)
Good for you. Here in New Zealand our carriers only push updates a few times a year, if at all. I had an HTC Android with a extremely annoying bug which my carrier (Telecom NZ) took 6 months to push an update for. I ended up just cracking my phone and putting on Cyanmodgen only to have my carrier release the update a few weeks later. I basically traded issues I had with the stock software with issues I had with the Cyanmodgen software so I was still pretty unsatisfied with the phone. My experience with Android's overreliance on carrier updates has been so bad I'm actually considering WM8 or Apple for my next smartphone. At least with Apple (and WM8 I'm hoping?) you get your updates directly from the horses mouth instead of having to wait for your carrier to push it at their leisure.
Re:what happened to not wanting to sue? (Score:2, Interesting)
The award was reduced based on the fact that the jury used an impermissible legal theory to calculate them. That is a straight up reduction.
And yet, all of the jury's decisions still stand in principle. And some will still get larger, simply by the fact that Samsung keeps selling infringing products.