Frenemies for life ... Apple vs Samsung

I'd imagine it also has a lot to do with the fact that Samsung largely moved away from copying Apple since the release of the SGS3 which has established a fairly unique design language. It is quite hard to prove that SGS3, SGS3 Mini or Note 2 were ripoffs of the iPhone look. Well that and they stopped winning in court so they probably decided to cut their losses.

Looks like Samsung also are cutting back on their less-reported litigation, so hey we're all getting along now.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/12/samsung-display-drops-injunction-request-against-lg-display-mov/
 
Last edited:
Apple needs Samsung ... and Samsung needs Apple. They both know it. Time to put the past behind them and move on. Forget about all the "thermonuclear" nonsense of a now dead man. Jobs took everything personal and actually became a threat to Apple with his personal vendettas and scores to settle. With him gone and a far more even tempered Tim Cook in control the heat will hopefully come down and we can all enjoy all the great products made by two great companies without all the fights. No matter how much Apple will try to deny it, Samsung was their best and most reliable supplier. We do not want inferior quality parts in Apple products because of the personal issues Jobs had with Samsung.
 
No look, they will always be frenemies. They should be like best friends playing squash.
 
BeVonk! said:
Yep. :D And hopefully it will remain that way. The iPhone 5 may be the exception as Apple tried very hard to stay clear of Samsung for parts.
Click to expand...

I think they're going to become increasingly autonomous on the manufacturing side. They have already managed to fabricate their own chips, and apparently they spent around $10bil and will spend another $10bil on building capacity. So frenemies for life is actually only until they can cut their ties with Samsung altogether, but that's still highly constrained by flash memory.
 
cerebus said:
I'd imagine it also has a lot to do with the fact that Samsung largely moved away from copying Apple since the release of the SGS3 which has established a fairly unique design language. It is quite hard to prove that SGS3, SGS3 Mini or Note 2 were ripoffs of the iPhone look. Well that and they stopped winning in court so they probably decided to cut their losses.

Looks like Samsung also are cutting back on their less-reported litigation, so hey we're all getting along now.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/12/samsung-display-drops-injunction-request-against-lg-display-mov/
Click to expand...

Which is of course why they never sued for the SIII.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405417,00.asp

They withdrew the SIII Mini from the suits, but only because Samsung didn't actually release it in the US, and therefore they can't make a case for it.

Apple doesn't care about copying or "design language". They care about Samsung competing with them, and that simply can't be allowed to happen.
 
Last edited:
Look of course if they could sue Samsung into oblivion and control the smartphone market exclusively, I think they wouldn't hesitate. The point is, they're not winning anymore and that's largely because it's hard to prove a case against the likes of SGS3.
 
cerebus said:
Look of course if they could sue Samsung into oblivion and control the smartphone market exclusively, I think they wouldn't hesitate. The point is, they're not winning anymore and that's largely because it's hard to prove a case against the likes of SGS3.
Click to expand...

My point is, that this is not just Steve Jobs's war against Android. The article earlier (second post) said that Apple didn't want the war, but Jobs did, so they sued. So, after Jobs stepped down as CEO, they added some devices that are obviously non-infringing to the complaint (by your own argument).

Therefore, it's not, as the article implies, something that Jobs did in contradiction to the general will at Apple, but that this is a standard tactic of the company. I find the article to be wrong, by Apple and their current CEO's own actions. Certain employees may not like it, but clearly upper management does.
 
Valerion said:
My point is, that this is not just Steve Jobs's war against Android. The article earlier (second post) said that Apple didn't want the war, but Jobs did, so they sued. So, after Jobs stepped down as CEO, they added some devices that are obviously non-infringing to the complaint (by your own argument).

Therefore, it's not, as the article implies, something that Jobs did in contradiction to the general will at Apple, but that this is a standard tactic of the company. I find the article to be wrong, by Apple and their current CEO's own actions.
Click to expand...

My point is, it's rather sanctimonious for this David Eun to preach against litigation while quietly in the background they were suing LG.
 
cerebus said:
Yeah lol being sued = stifling innovation. Suing = protecting valuable IP. It's all contingent to what side of the lawsuit you happen to be sitting on.
Click to expand...

Personally I believe that most of these lawsuits are stifling innovation. There are completely worthless and stupid patents being sued over, by many of these companies.
 
Valerion said:
Personally I believe that most of these lawsuits are stifling innovation. There are completely worthless and stupid patents being sued over, by many of these companies.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that slavishly copying your competitors is innovative? I won't say I agree with the lawsuits, but the definition of innovation is doing something that nobody has done before. If you're being sued for it, it means there's a chance you aren't being highly innovative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X