Tim Cook Never Wanted To Sue Samsung 197
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."
Unable to control your company, or complicit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Money where your mouth is (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Allow me to join in here (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re:Allow me to join in here (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Moral Coward (Score:1, Insightful)
Ray Noorda was willing to say "bad idea" when Novell bought out the UNIX rights from AT&T and stopped/settled the BSD/AT&T lawsuit once he became "in charge" over it.
Thusly Mr. Cook is trying to BS ya all.
Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. Judge people by their actions not their words.
Sometimes that happens. Sometimes it doesn't. As a result, Samsung is supposed to pay $1bn for violating Apple's patents, but a huge leak of hydrofluoric acid at Samsung's plant that killed one worker, injured four and according to police reports may have affected thousands, got them a one thousand dollar fine.
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2244389/police-contradict-samsungs-acid-discharge-claims [theinquirer.net]
Re:I'm not the bad guy here (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple didn't patent rounded corners. Apple has a _design patent_ for a design consisting of many items, one of them rounded corners. To infringe on this _design patent_, you have to copy the complete design, every single item listed in the design patent. You can have as many rounded corners as you like. As long as your design is in some way different from Apple's design patent.
Here's for your enjoyment an example of Samsung patenting rounded corners:
http://www.patentbolt.com/2012/12/samsung-wins-a-design-patent-for-one-of-their-galaxy-phones.html [patentbolt.com]
Re:I'm not the bad guy here (Score:4, Insightful)
See, when people say silly things like "patenting shit like rounded corners", we know you never actually looked into what was patented, nor understood it, but instead, just like repeating talking points you were given.
Luckily, in the court of law, people actually examine evidence.
Re:Money where your mouth is (Score:2, Insightful)
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'll find they think the first smart phone was an iPhone. Same goes for iPod, same goes for iPad, same goes for just about every popular product Apple makes. There's no accident there. It's aggressive, manipulative and deceptive marketing that makes that happen. So much so that they have many times been successfully sued and or banned over their deceptive marketing tactics.
IMO, and I'll probably be modded down for this, 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. Every time I see a Mac boot I feel sorry for The Regents of the University of California. Credit needs to go to the people who made the OS, not the people who shamelessly threw their window handler on top of it and re-branded it.
Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I'm not the bad guy here (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't that one of the many Samsung phones Apple sought an injunction for claiming that it infringed on their iPhone design patent because among other ambiguous design concepts it had rounded corners and was therefor indistinguishable from an iPhone? (yes)
No I didn't get that from the Android talking points, if such a thing exists, I closely followed the court cases on Groklaw as they happened.
theRunicBard was correct, and you're just parsing words like an Apple lawyer.
Re:So basically what you are saying is... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:I'm not the bad guy here (Score:3, Insightful)
Really. Show me a web browser prior to Safari that bounced on overscroll. That was one of the patents that Samsung lost on. So show me the 2006 browser.
Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (Score:5, Insightful)
The usual solution is to agree an "out of court settlement" where neither party admits fault.
Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (Score:0, Insightful)
Samsung is well known for cross-licensing intellectual property, and it's pragmatic attitude towards litigation...
No they are not! Look up their corruption charges in Singapore and South Korea. Lee Kun-hee is no better than a mafia boss. They don't litigate either but if you go against it you will be taken care of.
The author of Steve Jobs biography mentions a call to Samsung from Steve asking them to settle out of court and not to go down the path of litigation but I guess they turned him down.
Re:Money where your mouth is (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:I'm not the bad guy here (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/76470.html [macnewsworld.com]