Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Patents The Courts Apple

Apple and Samsung Ordered Talks Fail - Trial Date Set 165

Fluffeh writes "Apple and Samsung just can't come to an agreement, even when the two CEOs have been ordered by a court to hash it out over a two-day period. U.S. Judge Judy Koh had ordered the sit down prior to court proceedings between the two giants, but the talks resulted in nothing more than each side confirming its position. Although Apple CEO Tim Cook said, 'I've always hated litigation and I continue to hate it,' he also said, 'if we could get to some kind of arrangement where we'd be assured [they are inventing their own products] and get a fair settlement on the stuff that's occurred.' Perhaps Tim is worried that Samsung is still the primary component supplier for mobile products, including the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch, or perhaps Apple has bitten off more than it really wants to chew, with the litigation between the two getting to truly epic and global proportions."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple and Samsung Ordered Talks Fail - Trial Date Set

Comments Filter:
  • Grammar Nazi (Score:3, Insightful)

    by schitso ( 2541028 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @10:36PM (#40096213)
    "each side confirming it's position"
    Is this what the world has come to?
  • by MachDelta ( 704883 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @11:17PM (#40096473)

    I would LOVE to see a judge walk out, call the CEOs to the bench, grab them both by the ear and yell "PLAY NICE OR I'LL TAKE BOTH YOUR TOYS AWAY" and then dismiss these ridiculous lawsuits.

  • by neurocutie ( 677249 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @11:33PM (#40096573)

    I would LOVE to see a judge walk out, call the CEOs to the bench, grab them both by the ear and yell "PLAY NICE OR I'LL TAKE BOTH YOUR TOYS AWAY" and then dismiss these ridiculous lawsuits.

    Dismissal? What the judge should do is take away both set of patents!

  • by ATMAvatar ( 648864 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @11:33PM (#40096581) Journal
    In any normal case, that would be true. But as Samsung is the major (still only?) supplier of screens for the iPad3, the relationship is more complicated. Tim Cook isn't taking his current position because he really hates lawsuits. He's taking it because he figures that even if Apple wins the legal battles against Samsung outright, it could still end up a Pyrrhic victory.
  • Biased summary? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Theaetetus ( 590071 ) <theaetetus DOT slashdot AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday May 24, 2012 @12:10AM (#40096713) Homepage Journal

    Perhaps Tim is worried that Samsung is still the primary component supplier for mobile products, including the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch or perhaps Apple has bitten off more than it really wants to chew with the litigation between the two getting to truly epic and global proportions.

    None of that is in the article. So, Fluffeh is the new Fox News?

    In general, two companies failing to come to an agreement means... two companies failed to come to an agreement. Not, "one company is 'worried' and 'has bitten off more than it really wants to chew'."

  • No not necessarily (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Thursday May 24, 2012 @12:10AM (#40096717)

    If everything went absolutely against Apple in all cases (not likely but just saying) they could wind up with a ton of money but nothing to do and no easy ability to make more. I mean if Apple had a situation where their products were ruled to be violating other companies' patents, and other companies wouldn't license them, plus suppliers stopped working with Apple (Samsung is a big supplier of parts like their screens) they would have a situation of nothing to sell.

    Money doesn't solve that. In the long run it could solve a supplier issue as they could build their own production lines, but that takes quite a bit of time and still wouldn't solve patent issues. If the patents are fairly trivial, sure they could work around them, however if they are more fundamental to mobile phone operation or the like they might be fucked.

    I don't see that as likely but don't make the mistake of thinking that lots of money can solve the problem. Apple is likely going to have to learn to play nice with others.

  • Re:Grammar (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24, 2012 @12:27AM (#40096781)

    "A thousand times over, NO ONE GIVES A SHIT"

    You're wrong.

    Stupid people like you don't give a shit.

    Smart people do give a shit. You do know smart people don't you ?

    They are the people you call "boss", and they are where your paycheck
    comes from. And they are in a higher position than you are precisely
    because they DID give a shit and learned how to communicate well.

  • by Gadget_Guy ( 627405 ) * on Thursday May 24, 2012 @12:28AM (#40096787)

    While the world media headlines are blaring "Apple sues Samsung" or "Samsung sues Apple", Apples is providing Samsung more one billion U. S. dollars to keep Samsung's Austin, Texas fab in operation

    So what is your point? That Samsung should be so grateful to Apple for choosing them as a supplier of parts that they stop competing with Apple in other markets? If that is how things work then all Microsoft has to do is buy a billion dollars worth of Macs and Apple will drop the iPhone so they don't compete with Windows Mobile phones.

    The fact that these massive companies can do business with each other on one hand while filing lawsuits with the other hand is not unusual. It is as relevant to this story as them both having members of staff named Eric.

    It is possible that misunderstood your point. If that is the case then please tell us what possible scenario you had in mind when you said that you suspected that there is more than meets the eye? That Apple has paid Samsung to be its whipping boy so they can look like dicks when they sue them for using rounded corners? Or perhaps Apple are using this dispute to renegotiate their other contracts with Samsung. Or maybe it is all just to fill up newspaper columns so that journalists don't start talking about the other players in this area like Microsoft or Blackberry. (If the last one is true then it certainly worked!)

  • Uhhh...not there isn't, this is just SOP when it comes to large corps. Look at how when AMD was suing Intel neither company tried to screw up their cross licensing agreements.

    The problem friend is you are looking at this like how a person looks at it, where they don't go to court unless they hate someone or they were fucked over and they go to court because they can't do what they REALLY want to do which is go stomp the shit out of the other person.

    Whereas the big corps often treat courts like a referee when there is a dispute. It doesn't mean they are gonna quit playing the game, it just means they need a ruling on the field. At the end of the day Samsung has parts that Apple wants and they aren't about to give up those parts and hamstring themselves just to go "Fuck you!" to Samsung. its not like cutting off that money would break Samsung anyway, they got plenty of others to buy from them, all it would do is hurt both in the short term, and probably Apple more considering how hot their consumer devices are ATM. It would be idiotic for Apple to screw up their supply line so they won't, simple as that. I bet after the ruling both companies will just go on like it never happened, that's just the way it works friend.

  • by Rik Rohl ( 1399705 ) on Thursday May 24, 2012 @03:00AM (#40097357)

    What the judge needs to do is issue a global injunction to both companies preventing them from shipping any tablets until the entire legal process is finished, including any appeals. That'd get them both talking real quick.

    Pity that can't happen.

  • by quasipunk guy ( 88280 ) on Thursday May 24, 2012 @03:54AM (#40097607)

    Samsung has a lot to lose by alienating Apple. Apple is a huge customer, very few organizations buy in the volumes that Apple works with. Losing a big account would suck, but Apple pouring billions of dollars into Samsung's competitors to improve their manufacturing technology will make a large impact on Samsung's ability to compete.

    Also consider that Apple's order volume enables Samsung to run their factories at higher capacity, reducing overall operating costs by reducing or eliminating downtime. In some cases this could mean that a factory would not be able to operate profitably. Could Samsung's US fab maintain their price points and sustain their infrastructure development plans without Apple as a customer? I have no idea but it doesn't seem like an obvious answer.

  • by Fjandr ( 66656 ) on Thursday May 24, 2012 @03:58AM (#40097625) Homepage Journal

    I'm not an expert on business law, but I'm pretty sure there are laws in place in most countries preventing exactly that from happening. This isn't to say I support them being unable to tell Apple to fuck off arbitrarily, but I'm thinking that's not exactly an option for them.

  • by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Thursday May 24, 2012 @04:04AM (#40097645) Journal

    Samsung can answer the question "You and what army of killer robots". Apple can answer the question "You and what army of hipsters who are to worried about their lattes to ever make a stand for anything". I know which one I would be more afraid to anger.

    People forget that Samsung is an old fashioned giant, it may not have as much cash but it has business in nearly everything under the sun. Anything from ships to military to the chips that Apple so desperately needs. Samsung could loose all its mobile income tomorrow and it easily survive on everything else with full backing of the Korean government and its US military customers. Apple would be bankrupt and torn to shreds by its share holders and nobody has any incentive to keep it going. The world needs Samsung as a supplier, Apple? Nah.

    It is what happens when you outsource all your actual production, just in time delivery sounds nice, but it means your suppliers own you once they realize this themselves. GOOD just in time delivery makes certain that you have a choice of suppliers and that none of them can survive without your business. Samsung can EASILY survive without and in fact, if they stop shipping to Apple, they kill a major competitor to their own products.

    And if you think Apple can just go to someone else... they are all asian giants to. All of who would be perfectly happy to see Apple die and take over its business.

    A lot of business stability exists because the status quo is just easier to keep. But Apple upset that, when you stir the calm waters, the sharks surface.

  • by Kupfernigk ( 1190345 ) on Thursday May 24, 2012 @05:22AM (#40097943)
    Commercial cases like this between big companies is exactly what the law is supposed to do. When negotiation breaks down, the next level is litigation in which a third party (judge) assesses the case based on expert interpretation of the evidence. In non-civilised societies that next level doesn't exist and commercial disputes are dealt with with weapons. Recourse to the law is a sign that at least one party is unreasonable, but it is better than the alternative.
  • by whisper_jeff ( 680366 ) on Thursday May 24, 2012 @06:02AM (#40098083)

    If Samsung was so stupid as to cut off their largest customer, that would truly be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Samsung has a bottom line to watch out for as well and the billions of dollars that Apple directs their way is a significant portion of Samsung's balance sheet. No sane company is going to throw that away out of spite.

  • by whisper_jeff ( 680366 ) on Thursday May 24, 2012 @06:10AM (#40098109)

    Is there something that FORCES you to sell to your competitor?

    Yes. Non Discriminatory. Anyone offering a FRAND patent (typically a patent that has been accepted into an industry standard) _MUST_ license the patent to anyone and everyone who is interested in licensing it at a Fair and Reasonable rate. Almost always this means that the license rate is lower than a non-FRAND patent would garner but the idea is that you make up the money due to the fact that everyone who wants to participate in that industry standard must license from you - you make it up in volume. But, yes, they MUST license to anyone and everyone, even if they don't want to.

    Fair, Reasonable And Non Discriminatory. FRAND.

!07/11 PDP a ni deppart m'I !pleH