Sounds smart to me
What PR effect do news stories about the legal battle usually have, respectively, for Samsung and Apple? Do companies that size really notice $119m either way? So in whose favour is it to keep this thing going?
Thought the years-long court battle between Apple and Samsung had come to a close with last week's verdict, did you? Bad news, then; Samsung has announced that it will be appealing the $119m jury ruling. The Korean electronics and washing-machine giant said that it would seek to overturn the patent infringement verdict handed …
They're kind of obliged, really. If the appeal costs less than $119M, they owe it to their shareholders to do so.
On sheet vindictive grounds too, it's worth it. The $119M is sunk now anyway, so may as well throw a couple of last punches as the bouncers drag them away - if nothing else it shows they won't just roll over for a fisting from patent trolls.
"They're kind of obliged, really. If the appeal costs less than $119M, they owe it to their shareholders to do so."
Not really. If they assess the chance of winning at 100% then they should spend up to $119m. If they assess the change as just 10% then spending $11.9m would be the rational thing to do.
Oh, dear, I just used the word 'rational' about these ego-driven lawsuits. *sidles off in shame*
Pointed out in another thread.
If you can be bothered to read this excellent article, you might understand that the evil party, as a matter of corporate policy, is not Apple.
Down vote away, but Samsung has, and has always considered IP infringement (and outright cartel activity as well) a cost of business and they have been hammered by various governments and some of their executives have done hard time for their behaviour (more of it I say).
but Samsung has, and has always considered IP infringement a cost of business..
Now tell me, who doesn't? Pretty much every company had paid some damages for a "patent infringement" or two, including even both MS and Apple. Apple had also been found to infringe a filesystem patent too. No need for any evil corporate policy, when the head and all of the upper management so adamantly believe that they had really invented the rectangle with those never-seen-before rounded corners!
I've just read it - if you think that is "an excellent article", then all I can say is that we have a very different interpretation of "excellent". Hearsay, recycled rumour, a lawyer that claims the executives of (another tech firm) "couldn't lie to save their lives" ... all rubbish slanted towards the American view.
Oh, and using "Vanity Fair" as a reliable source? ... No, just no.
Files system: $100,000
Aesthetics & Ergonomics: $100,000,000
Is it any wonder their is a shortage of decent STEM workers when society values their efforts several orders of magnitude lower than the lads drawing pretty pictures.
(I am aware I work for a print firm and spend most of my time drawing pretty pictures)
I remember it being mentioned that the iPhone wasn't the world's first smartphone. So I looked it up.
Android phones came out a year after the iPhone. Before the iPhone, there was the Blackberry, there were phones running Symbian, there were phones running PalmOS, which licensed a lot of stuff from the Apple Mac, and the first smartphone may have been something from IBM.
There wasn't much, and especially there wasn't much multitouch before Apple. Does that mean, though, it should be able to control so many key features from being first as to have an effective monopoly on the product category?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019