Feeds

back to article Apple to settle with Samsung? Korean honcho: 'Fuggedaboutit'

Although HTC and Apple reached an out-of-court settlement of their patent-infringement squabbles on Saturday, don't expect such an amicable armistice in Cupertino's ongoing patent war with Samsung. "It may be true that HTC may have agreed to pay 300 billion won ($276m) to Apple, but we don't intend to [negotiate] at all," said …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge

Of course they won't

A few month ago they may have negociated, but now it looks like Apple is zipping towards a comprehensive worldwide spanking so it doesn't really make sense for Sammmy to offer money, does it?

18
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Of course they won't

Actually Apple appears to be winning having now settled with HTC. Maybe they are worried because they could owe a lot more than the £279 million HTC paid out.

0
19
Silver badge

Re: Of course they won't

Settling does not mean HTC have admitted guilt, they just looked at the bottom line figures (lawyers) and falling profits and realised it wasn't financially viable to fight...

Given the way some of the judgements have gone I don't blame them!

3
0
Silver badge
Paris Hilton

Re: Of course they won't (@ the Coward)

> Apple appears to be winning having now settled with HTC.

Apple don't appear to be winning. They irreversibly lost in Europe already (before the courts, mind you), and are about to lose in the US too. Settlements have been used in FUD techniques (most famously by Microsoft) but that only works when your adversary wants to avoid a lengthy, costly and uncertain legal process. Samsung is already involved in the legal process, and seem to be winning. Apple can't scare them with an unrelated settlment.

> Maybe they are worried because they could owe a lot more than the £279 million HTC paid out.

That doesn't make sense. If Samsung were worried about that, now would be the perfect time to negociate: in the aftermath of their Euro win and before the retrial in the US, they are in a very good position to negociate. Only, why would they want to?

10
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Of course they won't

The very fact they are making this pronouncement publicly immediately makes me think the opposite, Samsung are planning to negotiate a settlement. There are three reasons I think this is how they are now minded:

1) If you plan on fighting, a common strategy is to feign interest in negotiating to see if the other party are ready to compromise. If they are, then they are more likely to accede ground if you stay strong in your fight. The mirror, is also true, if you feel you need to negotiate or would prefer to, make it seem as much as possible like you don't.

2) Despite what fanboys like to think on here, Samsung ARE abusing FRAND patents and they know they are risking running into the buffers with the regulators (Judge Posner, who has already chided both sides has already ruled as much). My job is evaluation of patent strength and there is widespread misunderstanding of how the mechanics of FRAND work. Samsungs actions are a very considerable disservice to the patent pool they have already benefited from putting their patents in. Now they are acting as though those earlier agreements have no implications on how they can use those patents (they always had the choice not too put their patents in the pool, but chose to do so because they wanted the considerable benefits that come from doing so and having the patents in question as part of a standard). They know stating they plan to doggedly fight will cause concern amongst the regulators. I doubt they would further risk he regulators ire by ruling out negotiation unless they know they in fact will be negotiating seriously and soon.

3) Apple, doing a deal with HTC has set a precedent that both strengthens and weakens their position in differing aspects. Strengthens because it provides demonstration other parties are prepared to pay and so it is then reasonable to presume that in reference to the law, it looks like they should. Weakens because Apple can no longer maintain they have no interest in licensing. Apple did not put their patents in a patent pool so are unencumbered with regard to licensing. But now they can no longer maintain they have no interest in licensing and this weakens their their argument that they should be able to hold-up other manufacturer's kit. It's still nothing like as restricting as having their patents in a patent pool but it is still nevertheless a significant shift. Samsung can bank this slight "advantage" and for now it is better for them to continue to present an uncompromising face, whilst really being prepared to properly negotiate when they are next in front if a judge.

1
7
Anonymous Coward

Re: Of course they won't

Also, I should add to my earlier points, in my experience businesses are businesses first and foremost and I've never witnessed any larger than 100 persons standing on principle. It makes for less dramatic "TV" but IME they are *always* in reality prepared and preparing to negotiate - so make that 4 reasons I now think negotiation is likely to be starting soon.

0
4

the Galaxy was "not as cool" as the iPad.

**rolls eyes**

That is not at all what Judge Birss said.

He was referring to the Registered Design, no the iPad - read paragraph 190 of his Judgement if you don't believe me.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: the Galaxy was "not as cool" as the iPad.

So would that be the registered iPad design? Just wondering.

1
0
Vic
Silver badge

Re: Of course they won't

> I've never witnessed any larger than 100 persons standing on principle.

IBM? They could have bought SCO far more cheaply than fight them.

Vic.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Of course they won't

Quite possibly. I don't know the case. But i think it quite likely IBM's strategy as it unfolded lead them to greater cost than was expected, with the finish line moving further away as they approached it. Your example is a good one and, to my thinking, also illustrates the counter real world dynamic. If IBM knew the cost of litigation would be higher than buying, don't you think they would have bought ? This is the way most big businesses operate. Thinking with emotion is viewed as bad form for top execs (which isn't to say it doesn't happen, but in my experience the culture in big businesses is always towards being a pro exec dispassionately evaluating the deal - they all want to be *seen* that way). But as I say I don't know the case and this could well be an (albeit rare) counter example to my point.

0
0
Vic
Silver badge

Re: Of course they won't

> Quite possibly. I don't know the case

You don't know the SCO story?

Do go read up a bit.

> i think it quite likely IBM's strategy as it unfolded lead them to greater cost than was expected

I think you'd be wrong. IBM knew what it was doing. It stood its ground for very good reason.

> If IBM knew the cost of litigation would be higher than buying, don't you think they would have bought ?

No. IBM always knew the cost of litigation would be higher than buying. IBM had a point to prove, and it did so.

Vic.

1
0
Stop

And cue ....

yet more rabid Apple v Samsung comments from both "sides"

1
1
Anonymous Coward

'I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this' - S. Jobs

That's coming back to bite Apple now. Then again maybe that was his plan all along.

He knew he probably didn't have long to live and maybe he couldn't stand the thought of Apple continuing without him. He then sent his lawyers instructions that he knew would ultimately lead to the destruction of Apples credibility as a technology company followed by the fleeing of previously devoted Apple fans to other platforms as they look on in horror at the twisted creature they helped to finance and realise it is nothing but a corporate monster run by lawyers not visionaries.

But Steve was smart enough to know this would be a fight that Apple could not win. It finds itself under attack from all sides, by companies large and small who will not stand by idly while this creature attempts the biggest IP land-grab in history. They have fought and will continue to do so using every weapon at their disposal. Apple will find itself torn apart, small chunks and large ones torn out of its bank balance by the courts.

As it finds its assets dwindling it will cry for mercy, and the other companies will give it exactly as much mercy as Apple would have shown them had it been victorious - none at all.

They will continue to attack until Apple is a shadow of its former self. Then the corporate asset strippers will buy up what's left and pretty soon after Apple will be nothing more than a trademark, the name bought and sold just like any other asset. Then the other companies will carry on, business as usual and S. Jobs master plan will finally be completed, Apple will be gone.

18
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: 'I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this' - S. Jobs

Or how about an alternate (and more likely) reality where Samsung are just another Android maker - but now they do not make the best or cheapest Android phones - it could easily happen. There is (near) zero loyalty for 'Samsung' - people buy whichever Android handset is best at that time and next time it may be Asus, HTC or why not Motorola?

I reckon Samsung are in a much riskier position than Apple.

People talk down Apple far too easily - Steve Jobs (while clearly very talented) was not 'Apple' alone and he knew his time was limited so built up the team to take over. They have a HUGE cash pile and their products are still selling extremely well (certainly for a single manufacturer).

2
16
Anonymous Coward

'I reckon Samsung are in a much riskier position than Apple.'

Much broader product range, own their own manufacturing facilities, no shortage of customers who could make use of any extra production capability if Apple walk away.

Riskier how exactly?

19
0
Silver badge
Trollface

Re: 'I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this' - S. Jobs

> S. Jobs master plan will finally be completed, Apple will be gone

The last words to appear on the screens: "How about a nice game of Chess?"

4
0
Thumb Up

Re: 'I reckon Samsung are in a much riskier position than Apple.'

Remind me what did Michael Dell say about apple again , I forget! :S i'm going to keep you post for posterirty!

0
2
Silver badge

Re: 'I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this' - S. Jobs @ AC 19:50 GMT

> their products are still selling extremely well (certainly for a single manufacturer).

Apple is not a manufacturer by any stretch of the imagination. Actually all their products carry the mention "designed in Cuppertino, CA, USA", "designed" being the keyword here. But your argument is wrong on many other levels: Android outsells iOS by a huge margin, and you are right, this is partly because Apple is the only iOS vendor while Android is used by many.

But Samsung-branded handsets hugely outsell Apple-branded ones, too. And Sammy actually does "manufacture" their stuff.

Actually Sammy manufactures most of Apple's handset's innards. To take a rather drastic -and somewhat simplified- shortcut, to make an iDevice Foxconn assembles Samsung-made parts under Apple's supervision.

Apple does have a "HUGE cash pile" (as you put it), but that's almost entirely shareholder's money (AKA ghost money). Come a significant dip in stockholder trust and Apple is down the drain. Samsung has physical assets, physical stocks, and a myriad of customers all along the food chain, from kit makers to end users, encompassing kit designers like Apple. All Apple has is a high share price.

Before I get flamed by rabid fanbois: I'm not judging merits, just stating facts.

13
0
Silver badge

Re: 'I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this' - S. Jobs @ AC 19:50 GMT

Actually you'll find that about half of Samsung's phones (including some GS3s) are made in China. Assembled by some other outsourced manufacturer - not Foxconn, which someone else who does the same thing whose name I can't remember off the top of my head.

The labor rates in Korea are far higher than the labor rates in China, and Samsung isn't stupid.

0
0
Silver badge
FAIL

@ El_Fev Re: 'I reckon Samsung are in a much riskier position than Apple.'

> Remind me what did Michael Dell say about apple again , I forget! :S i'm going to keep you post for posterirty!

You clearly forgot. What did Michael Dell say about Apple? The real quote, not some interpretation. You know, "for posterirty".

Not what you thought, huh?

(If that can help you finding tangible arguments against Dell -as Apple apologists generally struggle with these- I for one dislike the cheap unreliable USB controllers on desktop machines, and more generally the way the Dell machines are built, but the beancounters seem to like the price point).

For "posterirty", Michael Dell ships a LOT more machines than Tim Cook does. Perhaps unfortunately. I am no Dell lover, definitely not. But that's the way it is, and no reality distortion field can make the Apple bigger than the Dell. Well, Wall Street can, for what it's worth.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: 'I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this' - S. Jobs @ AC 19:50 GMT

> Actually you'll find that about half of Samsung's phones (including some GS3s) are made in China. Assembled by some other outsourced manufacturer - not Foxconn, which someone else who does the same thing whose name I can't remember off the top of my head.

If you say so. That seems reasonnable. It doesn't change anything to my point anyway.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: 'I reckon Samsung are in a much riskier position than Apple.'

Much broader product range - if you mean their TVs, fridges etc. - yes that is broader but does not mean profitable.

Samsung are making the vast majority of it's profits from smartphones and tablets - this in turns props up other areas of their business like chip making etc. Now let's imagine a scenario where the next released 'best' Android tablet is NOT a Samsung and the next release 'best' Android phone is NOT a Samsung - instead LG, HTC, Motorola or anyone else.

Samsung could see their sales volumes plummet as there is near zero loyalty to Samsung - the loyalty (if much) is to Android and people overlook this all too easily. Seriously would you really buy a Samsung if next time you came to change a Motorola was better spec and / or cheaper and / or better made? Answer = NO.

I'm not having a go at Android but Samsung's no. 1 position could easily change within a matter of 6-12-18 months.

1
5
Anonymous Coward

Re: 'I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this' - S. Jobs @ AC 19:50 GMT

"Apple does have a "HUGE cash pile" (as you put it), but that's almost entirely shareholder's money (AKA ghost money). "

What a crazy statement - of COURSE it's shareholders money indirectly as Apple is owned by it's shareholders. Quite a simple concept really.

0
3
Bronze badge
Joke

Re: 'I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this' - S. Jobs

That's coming back to bite Apple now. Then again maybe that was his plan all along.

He knew he probably didn't have long to live and maybe he couldn't stand the thought of Apple continuing without him. He then sent his lawyers instructions that he knew would ultimately lead to the destruction of Apples credibility as a technology company followed by the fleeing of previously devoted Apple fans to other platforms as they look on in horror at the twisted creature they helped to finance and realise it is nothing but a corporate monster run by lawyers not visionaries.

But Steve was smart enough to know this would be a fight that Apple could not win. It finds itself under attack from all sides, by companies large and small who will not stand by idly while this creature attempts the biggest IP land-grab in history. They have fought and will continue to do so using every weapon at their disposal. Apple will find itself torn apart, small chunks and large ones torn out of its bank balance by the courts.

As it finds its assets dwindling it will cry for mercy, and the other companies will give it exactly as much mercy as Apple would have shown them had it been victorious - none at all.

They will continue to attack until Apple is a shadow of its former self. Then the corporate asset strippers will buy up what's left and pretty soon after Apple will be nothing more than a trademark, the name bought and sold just like any other asset. Then the other companies will carry on, business as usual and S. Jobs master plan will finally be completed, Apple will be gone.

There, fixed that for you.

1
2
LPF

Re: @ El_Fev 'I reckon Samsung are in a much riskier position than Apple.'

"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders," Michael Dell said before a crowd of several thousand IT executives. "

Just in case you couldn't work out how to use a link! Oh buy the way , remind me which company is worth more, which company makes more profits, bitch! lol

0
4
Silver badge

Re: @ El_Fev 'I reckon Samsung are in a much riskier position than Apple.'

For the record Pierre, M Dell said “I’d shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders.” Clearly that comment lacked business acumen. As since, many shareholders with only a few dollars invested have become multi-millionaires by ignoring that advice.

Also while Apple ship about half the units of Dell, their share continues to grow year on year, while every other PC "manufacturer's" share falls. They are positioned with the iPad which is a new market sucking life out of the old, and volume there is blowing the socks off of Dell, so which is more significant?

Unlike Dell, they don't have a dominant OS that is a shoe-in requirement for business continuity but have to fight their way into the established "standard." So really their growth remains remarkable and wholly down to merit.

There doesn't need to be a single clear tangible argument against Dell. Most machines share basically similar features. As you are well aware the differences are brought about by a multitude of details. Personally with Dell machines, I think the problem they have had for some time is the that the whole simply adds up to the sum if it's parts. So... Meh.

0
3
Rob
Bronze badge

Re: 'I reckon Samsung are in a much riskier position than Apple.'

I wouldn't say it's a definite NO, Samsung do have a strategy, not very pronounced mind, but it is there. In their media equipment they embed their AllShare tech which when you sell a product to an average Joe on the street who would like to share their phone content on the big HD TV or pump out some tunes via your home entertainment equipment the AllShare tech is a USP that could quite easily foster some loyalty. Ironically that's a bit similar to Apple as well, with their proprietary formats and protocols that allows iOS to easily share between other iOS devices and you can't say that hasn't helped towards Apple customer loyalty.

Now crank that up a notch and embed a similar vein in your fridge and washing machine and you have a Samsung built app that tells you your running low on a certain fridge item or the washing machine has finished don't forget to empty it. Granted they aren't there yet but I bet it's on the roadmap and that sort of home tech will definitely foster brand loyalty.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: 'I reckon Samsung are in a much riskier position than Apple.'

Additionally Samsung don't have any cloud services or ecosystem customers are bought into that is worth a light. As Mr Jobs once said, when he was having a wiser less acerbic moment "This isn't a zero sum game" meaning for a business to win it doesn't have to dominate and put all other businesses out of business. That's in impractical/unlikely outcome.

Samsung are in the same position as IBM or Dell or Sony were in in the PC business years ago. They don't own the OS, they are competing with a commodity product. They aren't competing on price (which was at least true for IBM - not so much Dell - though over the years Dell to got out of the game of competing on price), but because they don't own Android and have a commodity product their margins will get squeezed as they will not be able to wholly avoid getting dragged into competing on price with other Android vendors. They have no cloud service or ecosystem customers are loyal to. So yes, they *are* in a much riskier position than Apple. But they are also bloody good at manufacturing and have real scale right now. They are beginning to build a real brand. The trick will be to avoid making the same mistakes as Sony and to stay paranoid and driven.

0
2
Rob
Bronze badge

Re: 'I reckon Samsung are in a much riskier position than Apple.'

They might not have a Samsung cloud service but they are very friendly with Dropbox for their Galaxy range of phones as my free 50GB of space after getting a new phone is testament too. And there lies another issue with cloud services, there are too many being offered now. I have the opportunity for 5 other accounts with other providers of tech kit, it's now getting to the point where I don't want to sign in too multiple cloud services for a bunch of my fragmented content, which is where it will lead too.

As it is I use Dropbox for my media content (seeing as I have so much space now) and Google drive for my documents/paperwork, they have specific jobs and having only 2 works well for me.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Samsung are just as bad as everyone else - sue, sue, sue...

1
14
Unhappy

But...

do they try to patent square icons with rounded corners? Apple may be using the idiocy of our patent system (perfectly legally) to their advantage, but I find my nice American, middle-class, caucasian male self pulling for the Korean company an that's pretty screwed up because Apple profits are good for the American economy - well sort of anyway. Yeah, Samsung is just another corporate monolith, but with Apple making a complete mockery of the original intent of the patent system I can only hope they (Crapple) fall flat on their faces.

12
0

Re: But...

@Battsman - No, but they have tried to treat FRAND patents as non-FRAND patents.

1
8

Re: But...

@Armando 123

From what I read apple said screw you and used them without even asking Samsung.. Then when Samsung told them to pay up Apple went crying that paying a royalty on something that costs millions of dollars to develop was unfair (unlike their charging 20X more for rounded corners).

Samsung only seems to have decided to sue them cause apple decided to sue them 1st over rounded corners cause honestly you never even heard of them getting mad till after that which honestly IMO is fair game.

13
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: But...

Yeah and I suppose Samsung are virgins riding white unicorns - whiter than white. I'm pretty sure they will be patenting all sorts of things many people would regard as having prior art, obvious etc. etc.

0
5
Anonymous Coward

Re: But...

Well the Kevin, what you read is wrong.

1) The whole point of FRAND is that anyone buying kit from anyone in the patent pool, doesn't have to be worried about the patents. That is a service Samsung owes to their patent pool partners.

2) It is the hole point of a patent pool that companies can launch using a standard without first having to establish and argue each case of which patents may or may not apply. Opinions may differ and, as mentioned, it is one of the main aims of a patent pool to lubricate time to market so these matters can be dealt with later without fear of being stripped up or pursued for patent infringement - settling everything in advance to the satisfaction and agreement of all parties would mean no products would be launched for years.

3) Samsung's patents are not technically essential, but have been made de-facto essential by being incorporated in the standard. This means they have a value they would not have independently if they had not been included in the standard. Not only is it unconscionable to use them to try to block competitors kit, it's akin to daylight robbery. The equivalent would be if the government were to sell a license to build the M1 where it is a term of the license it has to be run at a fair cost, a company build and operate it and legally take the "Freehold" for the road but have only been permitted to be a stakeholder in the road system on the basis they adhere to the agreement and charge a fair price. They then ignore the agreement and start charging £100 per use. e.g. their license has been accorded a privileged position on trust they will operate fairly but they are electing to charge that much and take anyone to court if they disagree.

Not so re:Samsung-Apple?

Fair patent licensing costs, it is generally agreed, should come to no more than about 4% of the value of a product in total *for all the needed patents combined* and certainly no more than 8% if there are truly essential patents that cover the item in question. Additionally if you have ALL the patents for 3G wireless radio, but a product that uses it is also a computer, it is unreasonable to say the licensing cost is 4% of the total sale price of the computer, because 3G wireless radio is only one part of what it does. It is also a music player, video player, small computer etc. Now in this context my understand is Samsung have been asking for whole percentage cuts of iPhone sale price for patents that aren't even essential, but have been accorded an essential status by being accepted into the standard *on trust they will license on a FRAND basis*. It cannot be stressed enough there are many, many other relevant patents in the patent pool of which Samsung's patents are a tiny fraction and Samsung's patents have been blessed by being allowed into the standard (it has to be stressed, they were not technically essential but have become de-facto essential).

Against this context Apple have essentially said "there's not even any point in starting negotiation." Whether there has been any serious attempt at negotiation is moot and irrelevant when the starting demand is so high. So at last we get to the really uninformed part of your assertion that Apple ran roughshod and didn't bother to negotiate a license. The complete opposite is true. And on this point Apple are right. Judge Posner has said as much in his very fair and detailed ruling. He has pointed out very clearly why the rates and calculations by Samsung are unreasonable.

Samsung's demands are so far and away out the ballpark its' beyond belief. IMO it is clear Samsung have taken the action they have to pick a fight with Apple, because they didn't have other non-encumbered patent weapons available. Their defence when analysed is essentially the Marklar defence, as first defined by that seminal episode of Southpark about the music industry. The term "Marklar defence" from that episode has since been adopted by the legal profession because it is actually recognised as an effective way to confuse the argument and win a case. South Park hit on a real legal tactic that is sometimes utilised when one side does not have a good logical case. Confuse the Jury by spouting everything and anything, appealing to emotions, wether logically relevant or not. Indeed the attitudes evidenced on this comment board illustrate just how effective the tactic it is.

0
6
Mushroom

Re: But... @AC 11:51 GMT

"it is unreasonable to say the licensing cost is 4% of the total sale price of the computer, because 3G wireless radio is only one part of what it does."

"my understand is Samsung have been asking for whole percentage cuts of iPhone sale price"

You're arguing against yourself.

You argue, to me correctly, that it would be unfair to get 4% of the sale price of a computer because it can do other things. What you fail to say is that it can function as PC as that is what it is sold as perfectly well without the 3G wireless part

You then say that Samsung are unfairly asking for 4% of the iPhone sale price. To me that is perfectly fair because without the technology in the patent the iPhone is simply an iPod - it is therefore material to it's function as a phone.

From what I've read Apple want to dictate the price they pay for the FRAND patents and pay considerably less than anybody else.

I am unsure as to why Samsung don't go to court and say XXXX pays x.x% - that's what we want Apple to pay. Judge says that's reasonable as you're not asking them to pay more than XXXX - case closed

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: But... @AC 11:51 GMT

Not at all Chris. 4% for all patents, combined, of which there are hundreds in the 3G patent pool. Some even essential which are worth many multiples of the others. That makes the Samsung patents worth a fraction of a fraction of a percent.. That's the way these things work. You think 4% for a technically non essential patent is reasonable, then I'm afraid you don't understand patent licensing. Nobody, bar nobody in the business would agree with you ( even Samsung wouldn't try for that!). Indeed a non essential patent would never be worth 4% even if it were not encumbered by FRAND, so sorry but your way off the mark. My point is Samsung are using these patents as a tactic to cause trouble and almost anyone in the IP business will tell you that. They have little belief they stand a chance of winning the FRAND case and are using it to generate FUD; Which takes its toll even on a company the size of Apple. Samsung are attempting to make the value of winning be outweighed by the opportunity cost of being engaged in litigation. It's a tactic that can work very well, especially for a companies the size of Apple and Samsung. The more they can do that, the better deal they get when it goes to the negotiation table.

0
2
FAIL

Re: But... @AC 13:40 GMT (15/11)

Nope - You mis-understood my point.

My point is best summed up in the last paragraph. What do other people pay for the same FRAND patents?

Now if company XXXXXX already pays 4% for these patents then it *IS* reasonable to expect Apple to pay that. However if they pay 0.04% then it is obviously not reasonable to expect Apple to pay 4%.

It does strike me that Apple want to pay less %age than others simply because they sell more devices so they'll pay the same amount as others. if this is the case then Apple are in the wrong - no argument.

0
0
Stop

Good on them.

As clearly paying up, means next week it will be protection money for something else.

Good to see Samsung sorting out all this Apple "we patented round stuff" shite in the courts.... I think they should send the lawyers bills to the idiots that in the patents office, that are clearly on Apple's payroll...

5
1
Bronze badge
Joke

Khannnnnnn!!!! KHANNNNNNN!!!!!!!!

SIX YEARS PRIOR, KhanPle growled to the tech crew, "EEECH OF YUUU IN TURN WILL GO in THERE! (that ROUND decompression/litigation chamber)-- Die, AS THE OTHERS WATCH!

Six years layer, a few ligt years from at SetiTino 5...

(Today, an interjected thought

I bet Apple wishesh it had a Genesis Torpedo...)

Steve McCoy: What if this thing were used where life already EXISTS?

AppMaps Spock: It would preCLUDE such life in favor of its new matrix.

Steve McCoy: (incredulous/annoyed) "Its new MATRIX"?

Steve Clone (recently Macfenestrated): Like, breeng it onnn! This IS thermal, new, clear hoar!

Steve McCoy (thinks to self, i WILL fire his ass someday...)

......

BUT! PREMATURELY, Apple proclaimed the equivalent of "Samsung, I've deprivedmyour ship of POWER, and when i swing aroung, i intend to deprive you of your LIFE! Afft torpeDOES! FYAHHHH!!!"

...

Or "I wanted you to know who it was who has beaten you... I've left you at the center of a dead pkaned... Buried ALIVEEE... BURIED ALYVE! BURIED ALIVE.

To feign being beaten and not reveal having visited Gateway/Oracle, Samsung clenches fists, crying out the equivalent of...

"KHANNN!!! KHANNN!!! KHANNN!!!!"

0
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: Khannnnnnn!!!! KHANNNNNNN!!!!!!!!

WTF?

4
1
Bronze badge
Joke

Re: Khannnnnnn!!!! KHANNNNNNN!!!!!!!!

IRT to Khan telling Krk it is very cold in space, since revwnge is best served cold. Samsung appears to be giving apple a cold shoulder, depriving it of what t wants: the appearance of validity if every target settles. So, this can give rise to...

Appl: s'sung, my OLD friend, we meet again...

Samsung: Khan, you bloodsucker. You've managed to KILL jst about EVERYone ELSE! BUT, like a poor MARKSman, you KEEP MISSiNG the TARget...

Who is this Appl?

It's a long story...

We appear to have plenty of time...

Is there anything to eat? I'm hungry...

How can you think of FOOD at a time like THIS?

First order of business: Sirvival Besides.. Imitating that actor from the improvisational sci fi show HAS left ME drained

0
8

This post has been deleted by its author

Anonymous Coward

Re: Khannnnnnn!!!! KHANNNNNNN!!!!!!!!

Stop taking those blue pills

2
0
FAIL

Re: Khannnnnnn!!!! KHANNNNNNN!!!!!!!!

If that's your idea of a joke then don't give up your day job

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Khannnnnnn!!!! KHANNNNNNN!!!!!!!!

amanfrommars has had a software upgrade?

2
0

Re: Khannnnnnn!!!! KHANNNNNNN!!!!!!!!

If he has, he's had the equivilent of a Xp -> Vista "upgrade".

1
0
Silver badge

We won't negotiate at all

Mean's

We can get a damn sight better price than that.

Wait a few more weeks and they might pay us to go away.

Wait a few weeks longer and we can probably put the parts prices up again.

When they pay us and agree to our quote for the new screens order, then we'll sign.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

I don't really care about their old tablets, I like my new Galaxy Note 10.1, it looks nothing like an ipad, and I think it is MUCH nicer than my iPad, the only negative is the screen res could be higher, but it is not noticeable, its got a higher pixel density than my macbook air so I don't care....

Samsung should fight, but their new range of products are so different in design, I can't see how Apple would be able to sue to anything currently out there (and in no way is an S2 like an iphone, well maybe the iPhone5 is similar, but since that was released afterwards, I guess its Apple copying Samsung...)

5
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.