back to article Dead Steve Jobs 'made Tim Cook sue Samsung' from beyond the grave

Apple co-founder Steve Jobs pressured his lieutenants into suing rival Samsung even though they didn't think it was a very good idea, sources have claimed. Tim Cook, who was promoted from COO to CEO of Apple following the death of Jobs, never wanted to sue Samsung because Apple was snapping up the South Koreans' chips for …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

    A billion dollars is still a billion dollars though. Even if they don't get any other goodies from the case, well they've still got 1 billion $1 tissues to cry into...

    Of course it may have been a pyrrhic victory, for various reasons. It's still too early to say what the long-term effect will be of all these legal shennanigans on the industry. So even for a couple of $1 billion victories, I don't think I'd have taken the risk. But then I'm not running a huge corporation worth billions, so what do I know...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      So Apple has basically earned back 12.5% of what it spends each year with Sammy...

      nice rebate, but I am sure Sammy's margins are not that fine...

      1. Thomas Whipp

        however, shortly after the judgement Samgsung upped its prices to Apple by £1Bn over the course of a contract renewal. So I suspect Apple commercially isnt any better off.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @Thomas Whipp

          I thought the price rise had been widely debunked, along with the report that Samsung were going to stop supplying Apple with screens? Has something changed?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          [citation needed]

          And I mean from a verifiable source, not some journalist who heard it down the pub

    2. David Hicks

      I suspect

      That there will be a few years of appeals on that $1bn before we see any cash change hands. It certainly seems that there were more than enough shenanigans in the Jury room to get the whole thing reconsidered, and that's before Judge Koh's weird rulings on what could and could not be entered as evidence.

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

        Re: I suspect

        there will be a few years of appeals on that $1bn before we see any cash change hands. It certainly seems that there were more than enough shenanigans in the Jury room to get the whole thing reconsidered, and that's before Judge Koh's weird rulings on what could and could not be entered as evidence.

        David Hicks,

        I'm sure there'll be years of appeals to look forward to. After all, for a billion dollars, it's worth making the effort. However, I'm not sure Samsung have much hope of being successful. I think there are strict limits on what notice the courts are allowed to take of interviews with the jurors afterwards. So even though some of that sounded quite dodgy (the foreman appeared to be a total numpty), I'm not sure they're going to get any joy.

        As for the evidence Samsung failed to get included, wasn't that their own fault? Didn't they miss a submission deadline? If so, it's tough luck. That evidence may have changed the case, but they had every opportunity to submit it, and the lawyers all know when the deadlines are. They can't claim they didn't know, and after spending tens of millions on preparing the case, that kind of sloppiness is pathetic. Of course if it was the lawyers' fault, they might be able to sue them.

        Not that I'm saying there isn't some other reason for Samsung to win. But their case being right and 'justice' are even less important at appeal than they would be at a normal trial. Appeals tend to focus on technicalities even more than trials, as judges aren't normally supposed to second-guess the juries, just to make sure they got all the right facts in the right way.

        1. David Hicks
          Stop

          Re: I suspect

          I'm not sure if you think I'm on samsung's side or something, I'm just pointing out that there's more than enough material to keep this one dragging on for years.

          It's true that I'd like to believe in a rational legal system. In a case in which the foreman of the jury admitted that he had ignored court advice, misinterpreted the law and instructed the other jurors to do the same, I'd like to believe that in the modern day and age we could look upon that as a miscarriage. I am aware that the world is not rational however.

          I'm also aware that a multi-billion dollar international mega-corporation does not need the likes of me white-knighting for them, which I'm not.

          1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

            Re: I suspect

            David Hicks,

            I guess we mostly agree. I got the impression you thought Samsung had been unlucky to lose that case, and should have a decent chance to overturn it on appeal. I just replied with me opinion (not a legal one I hasten to add) that the obvious grounds look unlikely to work. Even if they're totally reasonable. Sadly justice and major corporate lawsuits don't exactly go hand-in-hand.

            I too would like to believe in a rational legal system. Sometimes I do, many times though, I wonder...

            The foreman of the jury seems to have gone on some bizarre crusade against Samsung. If we can believe his TV interviews. Very strange case indeed. It would be nice if something this obvious would be looked into - but from the judge's comments I somehow doubt it will. We shall see.

            I must say I didn't think my post deserved downvotes from either Samsung or Apple fans, as I wasn't having a go at either. Unless of course it was legal fanbois, given I was being rude about the legal system. In which case I suppose I mustn't grumble...

            1. Malcolm Weir Silver badge
              Big Brother

              Re: I suspect

              There are a number of issues with the judgment, many of which (as you correctly note) are hard (but not impossible) to challenge.

              First, no-one should read much into Judge Koh's post-trial rulings on this matter; whatever she said, there was going to be an appeal, so why should she stick her neck out? She kicked the whole thing upstairs, and in the meantime prevented undue disruption (e.g. by banning sales of product).

              But even if you choose to conclude that an appellate court is unlikely to overturn a jury's decision based on the jury's conduct (which is a reasonable conclusion), there is a large raft of problems awaiting Apple:

              1. The amount of damages seems to have no bearing on anything much. While an appeal court may choose not to change a jury's verdict, they adjust the amounts of damages all the time (and almost always downwards).

              2. Some of the features that Samsung is alleged to have infringed do not exist in the phone that the jury claims infringed. This is another downward adjustment!

              3. At least one patent is provisionally invalidated (the bounce-back one), so if that prevails, Apple won't see a penny for that non-infringement.

              And so on.

              No reasonable observer would expect Apple to collect the $1B; the question is whether they collect a significantly reduced amount, or a retrial is ordered because it has become impossible to figure out precisely how much the jury awarded due to which patent on which phone, and why.

              IF a retrial is ordered, I think it much less likely that Apple would prevail again.

        2. joekhul
          Megaphone

          Re: I suspect

          You forget that a lot of those patents that Samsung had been found in violation of have since been found 'invalid' by the patents office. Of course, Apple gets to appeal that decision, but if that holds up Samsung will significantly reduce their damages.

  2. FartingHippo
    Alert

    Is there anybody there?

    I can just imagine Tim Cook and the rest of the Apple board sat there with a white, minimal Ouija Board, their sweaty palms resting on a puck mouse.

    S...U...E...S...A...M...S...U...N...G

    And the rest, as they say, is history.

    1. Karl H
      Thumb Up

      Re: Is there anybody there?

      damn! you beat me to this comment . top man ! (and carry of farting ;) )

    2. LinkOfHyrule
      Paris Hilton

      Re: Is there anybody there?

      This is almost exactly what happened - it actually spelt out "Susan Sung Well On Britains Got Talent" but they were so preoccupied with the idea of suing them they chose to read into it what they wanted to hear!

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Is there anybody there?

      I think it would probably be a matte aluminium board. However, the sleek and elegant planchette would have mysteriously inadequate teflon pads, and thus would scrape in a nasty manner, scratching the surface finish after a while.

    4. Ian Yates
      Coat

      Re: Is there anybody there?

      Had it been able to do spaces, however, they would have known that it was actually a guy called Sam Sung that had pissed Jobs off once.

      1. Esskay
        Coat

        Re: Is there anybody there?

        Maybe they were holding it wrong?

  3. jason 7 Silver badge
    Holmes

    Let the market decide!

    That is all.

  4. Arctic fox
    Headmaster

    One interesting aspect of this is the way corporate psychology mirrors the mind-set of .....

    ......certain types of individual or at least appears to. If it is indeed true that Apple's most senior managers would have preferred not to go down the judicial route and their former CEO in practice bounced them into it, why are they not now (as far as we can tell) trying to row back? Can it really be the case that loss of corporate face is the same (in the psychological sense) as individual loss of face? Is it that the individual managers feel (consciously or unconsciously) that it would be a personal loss of face for them now if they back away rather than there being any "corporate gestalt" involved? It is a curious phenomenon that has been observed in many companies over the years, not just Apple. Senior managers when defending the culture of the "managerati" in Western economies frequently claim that they take "necessary, cold, hard, calculated decisions for the benefit of the company and its shareholders" whereas in practice many of their decisions appear to have very individualistic not to say egoistic overtones.

    1. Tom 13
      Unhappy

      Re: why are they not now (as far as we can tell) trying to row back?

      Actually that one is fairly easy. Once you've deployed the lawyers, it's not over until either a) the lawyers say it is, or b) it's so obviously going to cost more to pursue it than you can possibly get out of it at the end, that no one will question dropping the suit. As things stand now, if Apple drop the suit, an upset shareholder can bring suit against them for failure to fulfill fiduciary responsibility and they're losing money on the case no matter how it comes out.

  5. volsano

    iJa board anyone?

    Maybe Steve is communing still with his Board on Earth.

  6. Wize

    Couldn't Samsung...

    ...refuse to sell components to Apple? Would stop the oppositions sales dead till they found another supplier to make the relevant chips. Then Samsung could sue for coping components.

    1. Daemon Byte

      Re: Couldn't Samsung...

      They could stop supplying but if you ran a company would you turn away over $8 billion of business?

      1. IglooDude

        Re: Couldn't Samsung...

        It sounds like if Steve Jobs had been running Samsung, he would have stopped supplying Apple long ago.

    2. It'sa Mea... Mario

      Re: Couldn't Samsung...

      And because Apple designed the chip, Samsung just make it..

    3. g e

      Re: Couldn't Samsung...

      They'd also have supply contracts with breach penalties for either side and cost/price review milestones/clauses built in which is why Sammy recently put a rocket under their prices, most likely, in anticipation of A. Apple going elsewhere and B. Apple winning some judgement.

    4. tom dial Silver badge

      Re: Couldn't Samsung...

      They probably have contracts that require them to deliver. Failure to perform could lead to other, and far more justified, lawsuits as well as reducing any good will they may have with other customers. This is a nonstarter for a manager capable of rational thought.

  7. Dazed and Confused

    What! act like grown ups?

    How are all those lawyers going to make a killing, err sorry, make a living if companies do that

  8. NoneSuch Silver badge
    Terminator

    Funny but,...

    I don't recall Mr. Cook dropping any law suits since he took over as Apple CEO in Aug 2011.

    He could have calmed tensions post-Steve and negotiated with Samsung with mutually beneficial terms. Instead he continued, and some would argue increased, the vitriol.

    1. danR2
      Paris Hilton

      Re: Funny but,...

      Remember, this is story based on a Reuters story, based on claims by Reuters' writers Dan Levine et al. they were told by people with knowledge...

      Until Paris Hilton and the National Enquirer make a definite statement, we'll still be in the dark about all this.

    2. admiraljkb

      Re: Funny but,...

      @NoneSuch I agree. Cook had the opportunity, and the justification. The Cancer had made Jobs pretty much crazy in the last couple of years prior to his death. Unfortunately as I've seen from multiple family members in the last few years, Cancer (combined with the treatments for it, and then the treatments for the side effects for the treatments) have a tendency to make folks irrational, angry, paranoid, bat-crap crazy on occasion, and sometimes requiring a 24x7 watch to keep them from leaving the house in the middle of the night. Cancer is a mean SOB when it comes to stripping every bit of humanity from you before finally killing you off... *sigh*

      1. grantmasterflash

        Re: Funny but,...

        Which doesn't explain why he was a dick the rest of his entire life.

      2. Psyx
        Mushroom

        Re: Funny but,...

        Steve... mean?

        Surely not; he was Buddhist!

        Which is a fucking joke. He was the closest Buddhism has had to an anti-Christ.

        An entire religion based around not giving a shit about materialism, letting go of jealousy and resentment, being decent and forgiving to people so they are decent and forgiving and the world is a better place and Steve claims to be a fucking believer. Balls.

        This is the guy who helms the most successful, rich and morally bankrupt firm on Earth, makes the entire fucking planet want to spend £400 on a smartphone and feel smug about it, gets pretty much everyone shout at everyone else over their choice of fucking phone and buys a new car every fucking month. And he claimed he was Buddhist. Joself fucking Stalin was a better Buddhist than Jobs.

    3. Malcolm Weir Silver badge

      Re: Funny but,...

      Well, except that huge HTC settlement in November 2012 and the related ITC dispute... (huge in terms of litigation, not necessarily in terms of money).

      The "Funny but" would seem to be your recollection, not reality!

  9. Ted Treen
    Thumb Up

    Well I never...

    "like the pair of firms would be better off burying the blunt hatchet and getting on with making mobes in peace"

    That's got to be one of the most sensible statements I've seen on El Reg - from either journo OR commenter - regarding this whole patentfest...

    1. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge
      Joke

      Re: Well I never...

      but, but, but.....

      WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE LAWYERS!!

      Anybody?

      ...

      Anybody?

      ...

      Apparently not

    2. JohnG

      Re: Well I never...

      "like the pair of firms would be better off burying the blunt hatchet and getting on with making mobes in peace"

      Yes but a whole load of lawyers wouldn't then be able to live in the lap of luxury, so they are not about to let that happen.

  10. Silverburn

    Jobs

    Good decision: To recognise that Samsung would be their biggest competitor, even when they weren't really a player (at the time).

    Bad decision: To litigate, rather than innovate. At the time Apple had the market by the throat, and could easily have continued their dominance if they'd kept up the pace of progress introduced in the iphone 1 & 3G, instead of resting on laurels and suing. Removing 8bn of revenue from Samsung by changing to another, non-mobile making supplier would also have been a far more effective action than litigation.

    1. dotslash

      Re: Jobs

      Apple: "we've made a white rectangular phone with rounded corners, which has STT&TTS, what else is there to innovate???"

    2. JohnG

      Re: Jobs

      "Removing 8bn of revenue from Samsung by changing to another, non-mobile making supplier..."

      Which other supplier though?

      The snag is that Samsung have been coming up with really essential innovations, hence their patents which Apple needs to use under FRAND. Because Samsung have put time and money into technical R&D, they may have an advantage when designing components to exploit the technologies and standards which they have developed.

      1. Philip Lewis
        FAIL

        Re: Jobs @JohnG

        Name one.

        Better still, name one component supplied by Samsung in the current iPhone 5 that could not reasonably be sourced from another supplier. Remember that the principle of patent exhaustion applies to all manufacturers of components, not just Samsung. Samsung do not have any monopoly on 3G FRAND patents by definition, so you idea is logically broken.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Jobs

      Let me see, deconstructing and paraphrasing, you claim must therefore be that Apple have;

      a: failed to innovate since iPhone 3G and rested

      b: failed to adjust their supply chain away from Samsung when the opportunity arose

      So, the iPhone 4, 4S and 5 constitute zero innovation. Having actually upgraded from a 3GS to a 5, I can tell you that your position is false.

      As for Apple's supply chain, well there are plenty of guesses and precious little knowledge floating about (as you would expect in a rational world). However, at some point, should we see the Samsung content in iPhones declining (as I confidently predict), your position will also have been falsified.

      The implicit idea that suing negates the possibility of realigning the supply chain is logically broken.

      1. HBT

        Re: Jobs

        >> So, the iPhone 4, 4S and 5 constitute zero innovation. Having actually upgraded from a 3GS to a 5, I can tell you that your position is false.

        AHA...AHAHAHA...AHAAAAAAHAAAAA..NOOOO STOP!

        You might want to look up what "innovation" means. Hints:: 1) removing OS limitations (that competitors don't have) doesn't count, and 2) cutting and pasting in your competitors innovative parts (screens, CPUs, etc) doesn't count either.

        1. Philip Lewis
          Facepalm

          Re: Jobs

          So your definition of "innovation" in mobile phone technology excludes hardware and manufacturing process then. Is that correctly understood?

          1. HBT

            Re: Jobs

            Many people make shiny hi-tech products.

            Their only industrial design innovation that I can think of was to integrate the antenna with the case, and we know how that turned out ;-)

            Oh..and the rounded corners.

    4. Mark .

      Re: Jobs

      I'm pretty sure Samsung have outsold Apple for quite a while in mobiles, not just recently - it's unclear if Apple were ever ahead. And Apple were never number one - especially if you're talking the timescales of iphone 1/3G, the sales were lower than Symbian, BlackBerry and even Windows Mobile. Although I agree choosing to litigate rather than innovate is sad.

      1. Philip Lewis
        FAIL

        Re: Jobs

        Fuck you're a moron Mark.

        "Although I agree choosing to litigate rather than innovate is sad."

        This statement assumes that litigation and innovation are mutually exclusive. This is provably untrue, if nothing else using proof by existence.

        Since Apple have indeed litigated, your statement requires Apple NOT to have innovated.

        So, you need to have a very narrow definition of Innovate (probably one that you only apply to Apple) for your statement to be logically coherent - remember, the definition must result in a demonstration that Apple has NOT innovated.

        Choose your definition of "innovate" and, using it's opposite we shall see how other manufacturers compare, shall we?

        One despairs for the future of humanity with the level of innate stupidity displayed on these forums.

        (Down vote away, it will not change the truth of my post, not the logical flaw of the OP)

        1. Psyx
          Thumb Down

          Re: Jobs

          "(Down vote away, it will not change the truth of my post, not the logical flaw of the OP)"

          You get the down-votes more for being a rude, reactionary jerk-off who's had to resort to name calling in order to try and defend their point, I feel.

  11. LPF

    Appel one..

    While the S2 was a blatant ripoff of the 4 and 4S , the S3 had to be made different to avoid them getting strung up. Samsung is forced to basically give away the S3 with a packet of crisps, yes it makes money, but it does not make apple money on the S3. It will never have the cachet of the iPhone, and it means that the first time another andrioid maker comes up with a better design they will go the way of the RAZOR

    1. jason 7 Silver badge

      Re: Appel one..

      The iPhone doesn't really have any cachet any more though. It's the most common phone around.

      When everyone is the same no one is special.

      If I see someone I know brandishing an iPhone proudly I just adopt Lili Von Shtupp's accents and say "Oh an iPhone...how ordinewy!"

      You should see their little faces drop. Awww bless.

      1. Rob Carriere

        Re: Appel one..

        Isn't mass-market elitism fun?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Appel one..

          The reason that I bought an SII was that it WAS NOT an iPhone. I would never mistake one for an iPhone, but you could easily mistake the Huawei for an SII with textured back, 'power bulge' etc

          I was one of about 7 men in the Viva Forever audience on Saturday (with daughters, don't ask) and apart from one Storm II all the women there had iPhones.....

      2. Philip Lewis

        Re: Appel one..

        I read once that 60% of women in Japan own at least one LV bag.

        Casual empiricism during a trip there some years ago suggested that this statistic might actually be tru.

    2. Gary Heard
      FAIL

      Re: Appel one..

      Funny that, my daughter had a 3GS and had no end of problems with it, so when her contract came up went for an S2. Her first comments were that it was "very different" but within weeks she was sayinng (and still says, "It's the best phone I've ever had".

      On the strength of her comments I got an S3 when it came out, and yes, it's the best phone I've ever had. And I remember Samsung as a mobile phone upstart being beaten in all areas, except price, by Nokia.

      Finally a work collegue recently swapped from iPhone 4 to Galaxy SIII and he rates it as miles better than the iPhone.

      Note to Apple, get back to innovating, it's where you were best, litigating only makes you look foolish

    3. Crady

      Re: Appel one..

      Blatant? It looked nothing like an Apple iPhone.

    4. Euripides Pants Silver badge
      WTF?

      Re: Appel one..

      "go the way of the RAZOR"

      Electric, safety, feminine... what kind of razor are you talking about?

    5. Malcolm Weir Silver badge

      Re: Appel one..

      This is one of the most bizarrely irrational comments I've seen in a while.

      But where do I get a S3 with a packet of crisps?

      Meanwhile, my experience is that the Note II is cleaning up on the "cachet" stuff right now.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Is it just me

    Surely history teaches us that people copying each other to some extent is good? People borrowing ideas and improving on stuff is what keeps the world going.

    Should Apple not have been allowed to build a computer and monitor all within a single enclosure because Commodore had done it with the Pet?*

    Seems to be that there needs to be some leeway.

    * I know other designs happened before the Pet but its a well known model so I guess good for an example.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Is it just me

      If anything was ever in need of rounded corners, it was the Commodore PET.

  13. Grikath
    Mushroom

    pin the tail on....

    While Apple may have won a case against Samsung in the US ( for now, ymmv with appeals) , globally the same tactic has failed monumentally, as the same vein of reasoning regarding "look and feel" and alleged confusion of us poor punters has been tossed out of court rather unilaterally. There's some minor voctories on either side of the fence, but most of those regard actual features, and damages rewarded are effectively small change.

    Meanwhile the whole patent war has caused some people in rather influential places to have a good hard look at the whole patent business at the core of this war, and how it affects the global and local economies, and as a consequence attracted the attention of politicos and tax revenue services on some rather fancy corporate finance tricks.

    PR-wise the whole thing is a disaster for Apple, as inevitably the stories of this litigation percolate down to the Hoi-Polloi, who may be easily confused when it comes to rectangles with round corners (according to Apple) but who tend to be damn good at spotting a bully, and react accordingly.

    It's nice to see how Apple now try to do the " Wasn't Me! " routine, and try to pin the whole thing on someone who is dead and buried.

    The one thing about nuclear warfare is that you cannot contain it. Direct damage may be localised, but the fallout gets *everywhere*. Seems they forgot that one in Cupertino.

    Icon because obviousness is obvious.

    1. TeeCee Gold badge
      Alert

      Re: pin the tail on....

      It's nice to see how Apple now try to do the " Wasn't Me! " routine, and try to pin the whole thing on someone who is dead and buried.

      That's risky. I know there's a principle that you can't libel the dead, but if there's anyone capable of sueing from beyond the grave......

  14. ForthIsNotDead
    Meh

    All empires eventuall fail...

    Apple are on the down-slope. Samsung are on the up-slope. Just recently got a Samsung S3 'phone. What a machine. Even the Apple fan in my office was blown away by it. Now that St. Jobs has passed (RIP) it's down down down for Apple. Sure it'll take a while, but I think Jobs was a one-off, and Apple needed him.

    1. Frumious Bandersnatch Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: All empires eventuall fail...

      Apple are on the down-slope. Samsung are on the up-slope

      So you mean that it's plain sailing for Apple and that it's going to be tough going for Samsung? I'd have thought the opposite....

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

  15. JaitcH
    FAIL

    the pair of firms would be better off burying the blunt hatchet

    Better if the USPO cleaned up it's action and stopped patenting wet dreams that will never come true.

    More proof that Jobs was using a publicly owned company contrary to the shareholders interests. Now Cook should hope no one starts a Class Action.

    1. Dave 126 Silver badge

      Re: the pair of firms would be better off burying the blunt hatchet

      >More proof that Jobs was using a publicly owned company contrary to the shareholders interests.

      I think that any proof would be better expressed in numbers. Profit? Apple doing okay. Share value? Very difficult to prove that it isn't as high as it could have been, or to prove causation after it has been filtered through the market- which is based on risks, projections, analysis and gut-feelings.

      If you bought your shares in Apple when they were still on the ascendant, you should be happy. If you bought them afterwards, without looking at the company and Mr Jobs, tough titty. The whole basis of shares gaining value is that you are being rewarded for assuming some risk.

  16. plrndl
    FAIL

    Epic Fail

    Apple have actually shot themselves in both feet with this ridiculous legal venture. For the record, Jobs did not invent the phone, the computer, the mobile phone, the WIMP, the rectangle with rounded corners, the Apple logo or anything else of note. He merely packaged other people's innovations in a beautiful manner, and took all the credit.

    The iPhone is desperately in need of a design refresh, and should have had one for the iPhone 5, instead of making do with a stretched version of the previous model. Unfortunately, having sued everyone who makes anything that looks remotely like a phone, there's nothing they can make that won't get them sued in return (which they could probably afford), and banned from importing into the US, which they cannot afford.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Epic Fail

      "...having sued everyone who makes anything that looks remotely like a phone,"

      Aside from Samsung, who else has been on the end of a registered design (aka design patent) suit?

      1. Darryl

        Re: Epic Fail

        HTC

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Epic Fail

        http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/apple-vs-htc-a-patent-breakdown/

        Which one of these is related to the registered design (aka design patents) of the iPhone?

        or is there some other case?

        (Reposted in correct thread)

    2. Psyx
      Thumb Up

      Re: Epic Fail

      Up-voted purely for referencing WIMP.

      You ol' codger, you!

  17. Carl
    Happy

    Burying the hatchet

    ..is something Samsung would be happy to do.

    Because the aggressor in all of this, unsurprisingly, has consistently been Apple.

    Wait until the appeal of the decision and also of these ridiculous "patents".

    We'll see who owes who what.

  18. jason 7 Silver badge

    The problem Apple has now.....

    ...is that they have painted themselves into a corner design wise.

    If they design anything with the slightest hint of any other manufacturers previous design then they are in for even more legal battles.

    So they either just keep reconstituting their current design or they come up with something totally un-phone like.

    1. Yet Another Commentard

      Re: The problem Apple has now.....

      Hmm, something unphonelike. Maybe if they had a triumvirate design team of MC Escher, Salvador Dali and Dr Seuss. Of course all of them being dead kinda stops that.

      1. Dave 126 Silver badge

        Re: The problem Apple has now.....

        Salvidor Dali doing design?

        It worked for Chupa Chups:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chupa_Chups#Marketing

        (One of the craziest films never filmed was to be an adaptation of Dune, with Salvador Dali as the Emporer, music by Pink Floyd, concept art by H.R Giger and spacecraft by Chris Foss, cast including Mick Jagger, Orson Welles and David Carradine)

        I think goths would like a Giger-designed phone (would work in reinforced resin materials), I wouldn't mind a Chris Foss designed phone- though to be honest some HTCs begin to resemble his work once the anodising has chipped off them.

      2. Tom 7 Silver badge

        Re: The problem Apple has now.....

        Now Un Chein Andalou eye phone would get noticed!

      3. Euripides Pants Silver badge

        Re: MC Escher, Salvador Dali and Dr Seuss

        Steve is dead too, he might be working with them on just such a project...

  19. GotThumbs
    Boffin

    The only real winners are....

    the lawyers.

    All the lawyers involved are smiling.....all the way to the bank.

  20. Dan 55 Silver badge
    Coat

    Perhaps Steve is still haunting Tim in a white polo neck (see Randall & Hopkirk) and all Tim does is relay instructions at board meetings.

    Mine's white.

  21. sisk Silver badge

    If the pressure to sue came from Steve Jobs why has Apple not settled with Samsung and put the case to bed?

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This all out patent war has completely turned me off to Apple products. To me, Apple is turning a lot of potential customers off by their insane greed. They, rather than develop innovative new products, are trying to increase their market share by having Apple products being the only smartphone/tablet that you can buy. On the other side of the coin, by their 200 percent profit margin on Iphone 5 16 gig, they managed to accumulate a record bank account which they refuse to share with their investors! Add to that, those stupid patents that they are using in their patent war such as a rectangle with rounded corners, a general shape of an apple leaf or just swiping a touch screen shows an incredible lack of innovation and makes me wonder if some of that cash hoard has been used to bribe patent officials into accepting stupidity as a patent from Apple.

  23. Chad H.

    Thing is, had Steve Jobs been at Sansung, I'm sure the first thing he would have done when presented with a lawsuit is stop supplying parts.

    (And I'm an Apple customer)

  24. FanniM

    It wasn't about the money for a Jobs. I think he just wanted recognition that his designs have been ripped off.

  25. mickey mouse the fith

    Im not convinced

    "It wasn't about the money for a Jobs. I think he just wanted recognition that his designs have been ripped off."

    But they wernt were they?, have you ever met anyone who confused an iphone with any other phone?, i havnt.

    Apple pinched quite a few things from Android as well (pull down notifications etc). Being inspired, improving upon and studying other companies ideas is how inovation works, Apple should know, they copied a lot of their ideas from other sources. Imagine if ford had patented a 4 wheel vehicle powered by an engine and stopped anyone else developing or selling one. Ford would be very, very rich and we would probably still be starting the thing with a crankhandle.

    And why didnt Cook stop with the sueing and the rounded corner patenting if he wasnt sure about it?, did Jobs threaten to come back in a white sheet and haunt him if he did?

    1. Psyx
      Thumb Up

      Re: Im not convinced

      "But they wernt were they?, have you ever met anyone who confused an iphone with any other phone?"

      That's an enormously succinct way of putting it. And very true. We can bitch and moan on both sides with "it looks like an iPhone/no it doesn't", but ultimately we - the informed users - are never going to mix the two up in either form or function, which clearly makes a lie of much of the litigation.

      1. Roland6 Silver badge

        Re: Im not convinced

        >but ultimately we - the informed users - are never going to mix the two up in either form or function

        I'm not sure if you actually had to use the word 'informed'. From the court proceedings it seemed that the people who were actually sold something that 'looked like an iphone' and worked similarly to an iPhone, knew they weren't being offerred an iPhone but brought it because of what the salesman said in response to their query.

        1. Psyx
          Pint

          Re: Im not convinced

          "I'm not sure if you actually had to use the word 'informed'. From the court proceedings it seemed that the people who were actually sold something that 'looked like an iphone' and worked similarly to an iPhone, knew they weren't being offerred an iPhone but brought it because of what the salesman said in response to their query."

          I did, because the (UK) law does indeed suppose that the buyer isn't a monkey and that the typical man-in-the-street who buys a smartphone for £400 has at least a vague idea what he's looking at. This way re-iterated heavily by Judge Baylis in the UK hearing, who repeatedly told both parties that they were being ass-hats when they supposed that a customer would not -for example- turn the sodding thing over and look at the other side and see they were different.

          Common Law is very much pitched at 'the man in the street', and such a person is generally assumed by the law to be smarter than some lawyers like to pretend them to be when building cases.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    SamEsung

    Samsung have been copying designs and interfaces for years now, they have ZERO innovation, seriously the only reason this is the first most people have heard of it is because Apple have the clout to stick it to them.

  27. TechGeezer
    Alert

    Did Samsung ripoff Nokia too???????

    it looks like Samsung hasn't just been allegedly(-prevent libel) ripping off Apple either. Check this story out... http://nokiapoweruser.com/2013/02/14/did-samsung-lift-bendable-screen-tech-from-nokias-component-orders-nokia-rumored-to-dump-samsung-as-supplier/

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019