Both android and iPhone devices banned for sale in the US? That'd be hilarious :)
NB: Lighthearted banter enabled by, you know, not living there. I can imagine this is not quite as hilarious if you do. On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 8:56:52 AM UTC+2, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote: > > Good analysis, Reinier. > > While this is clearly a strong legal win for Apple, the more I think about > it and the more its pyrrhic aspect strikes me. > > Like you say, it won't make a little bit of difference from a money stand > point for either parties. > > The consequences for Samsung from a product stand point are probably going > to be mild since they have already adjusted their line of devices to avoid > the Apple patents, so they are most likely in the clear from now on (which > won't stop more lawsuits from popping up, for sure). > > The positive advertising effect for Samsung cannot be underestimated, > though, take a look at this post > <https://plus.google.com/114476892281222708332/posts/246srfbqg6G>to get a > sense of what this verdict has enabled. This is just the beginning. Like > you say, this verdict has completely validated Samsung as a valid and > cheaper substitute to iPhones. > > Of course, none of this changes anything to the fact that during all this > time, Android has continued to increase its lead over the iPhone in market > share and the experts seem to agree with my prediction last > year<http://beust.com/weblog/2011/01/14/not-too-late/>that the market will > stabilize around 70% for Android and 20% for the > iPhone. > > No doubt motivated by this verdict, Google has finally decided to switch > to the offensive and sue Apple > directly<http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/08/21/and-now-google-sues-apple/>. > > What a strange world it would be if in just a few months from now, both > iPhones and Samsung devices are banned from the US because of the lawsuit > fallouts, uh? > > Will Apple sue Google in response? This would require Apple to give a > credible estimate for the amount of money that Google is making with > Android, and with the operating system being free, this might be a tough > case to make. > > Finally, the trial has forced Apple to reveal more about its internal > processes than it would probably have ever dreaded to reveal in a century > and I can't imagine that Apple executives don't have a bitter taste in > their mouth about that. > > -- > Cédric > > > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Actually, while samsung stock is way down, this is fantastic news for >> samsung. >> >> * They can easily appeal here; the jury reached a verdict in 3 days. The >> jury instruction manual was something like 700 pages, so the judge is going >> to accept an appeal in about 5 seconds. The fact that various jury members >> made overtures that they see this as a 'slap on the wrist' for samsung, >> something the jury instruction manual specifically says is NOT their job >> (their job was to give fair compensation to apple, NOT to send a message to >> samsung). This keeps this farce going, and that's good for samsung, not >> just because they might get their billion back, but because... >> >> * We now have a court-ordered claim that samsung devices are carbon >> copies of apple devices. Geez. That's quite a bold claim, and now _the >> courts_ are saying that this bold claim is, in fact, true. That's a >> marketer's wet dream, isn't it? A court-stamped and validated claim that >> your stuff is just as good as the top dog in the market? >> >> * It's just a billion. I know, we civilized look at that and shake our >> head in disdain, but, it's like a week's worth of revenue for samsung. >> Contrast this to Microsoft, who, in a bid to stay relevant and try and make >> some leeway in the mobile phone business, bought skype for 8 billion. Let's >> put it this way: If I approached samsung 4 years ago with this deal: You >> can copy whatever you want from the device that is going to become the >> cornerstone of an entirely new market, and in doing so you'll actually >> outsell them, and all it'll cost you is the meager sum of a billion bucks. >> Oh, and, by the way, included in that price is a highly publicized court >> case which will highlight again and again how awesome your devices are. >> >> * Their flagship phones that they are _CURRENTLY_ selling (notable the >> S3) are _NOT_ even in the list, meaning, if any motion to ban sales of >> their phones shows up for the US market, samsung won't even care much. >> >> >> Now, is patent law as it applies to software and design a farce? You bet. >> The right answer is to abolish them entirely (not because this is the >> clearly most fair way to do it, but because the issue is clearly too >> complex for a law to handle, and abolishing them entirely leads to less >> economic damage to the IT sector than any other proposal I've ever heard >> about. Including Joe's various plans to try to make companies pay for >> getting their patent vetted for being actually novel. At the end of the >> day, taxing a law system to define novelty is a ridiculous proposal, think >> about it. Why should the government even be in the business of determining >> novelty? Why would anyone think that's actually going to work?). Would >> samsung be even happier if there was no patent case? I doubt they care. >> They got about a billion bucks worth of good press out of this I'd say. >> They can write this off as an expensive but effective marketing campaign if >> they want. >> >> In the mean time, apple is focused on entirely the wrong thing (please, >> Team Apple: You need to be focusing on making cool devices and software, >> and crowing victory when said software/hardware combos end up being awesome >> in practice. The victory dance is for the home-run that are the 11" and 13" >> macbook airs, for example. Not for a legal verdict that is in the end quite >> meaningless, and a legally mandated cash windfall. I've been using an S3 >> for a month or 3 now and from my perspective this thing is as good as an >> iPhone. A little better, even, because google is still much better at the >> cloud thing compared to apple. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Java Posse" group. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/GaVe6gm4VpQJ. >> >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected] <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/q964UVIwtAoJ. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
