Apple's Next Lawsuit: Apple v. Nokia

**stealthify** · 11-08-2012, 07:46 AM

Okay. I didn't say anything about Samsung or others having to make their tablets "hot pink" to avoid a lawsuit. That's an exaggeration, and as I stated in my last post, the patent in question is likely only to protect Apple from counterfeiters that make exact duplicates. The images used in the patent are detailed enough to help support this, not to mention other high-profile, similarly designed tablets like the Surface aren't getting sued too.

As far as preliminary injunctions go, I wish I had a better answer for you. Unless I'm missing something, I think Apple would have more to gain if they didn't do a preliminary injunction, let the products hit the market, win the lawsuit, get a huge percentage of every infringing device sold, and then file an injunction. Perhaps Lawdogg or someone in the field could explain to us why preliminary injunctions are more beneficial to a company than exploiting the sale of a product from a manufacturer that refused to sign a licensing deal to begin with. I suppose we can speculate on this, but I, too, would like an official answer.

**IPD** · 11-08-2012, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by stealthify

Okay. I didn't say anything about Samsung or others having to make their tablets "hot pink" to avoid a lawsuit. That's an exaggeration, and as I stated in my last post, the patent in question is likely only to protect Apple from counterfeiters that make exact duplicates. The images used in the patent are detailed enough to help support this, not to mention other high-profile, similarly designed tablets like the Surface aren't getting sued too.

As far as preliminary injunctions go, I wish I had a better answer for you. Unless I'm missing something, I think Apple would have more to gain if they didn't do a preliminary injunction, let the products hit the market, win the lawsuit, get a huge percentage of every infringing device sold, and then file an injunction. Perhaps Lawdogg or someone in the field could explain to us why preliminary injunctions are more beneficial to a company than exploiting the sale of a product from a manufacturer that refused to sign a licensing deal to begin with. I suppose we can speculate on this, but I, too, would like an official answer.

preliminary injunctions are rendered because the release of a product would "cause irreparable damage" to the solvency of a company. apple isn't in this condition. all that injunctions do is constrict market choices for the consumer. now if apple had invented cold-fusion and sought a preliminary injunction against competitors offering cold-fusion....THAT maybe i could understand. that's not what we have here, and i think the grounds for such an injunction is beyond reaching.

**stealthify** · 11-08-2012, 10:45 AM

iPhone 6, now with cold-fusion technology.

I can see the headlines now.

**IPD** · 11-13-2012, 02:45 AM

DailyTech - Report: Samsung Now Charging Apple 20% More for iPhone Processors

i love the top comment. "irony, thou art a heartless bitch".

1. 1B judgment against samsung for apple.
2. samsung charges 1B extra for goods it sells to apple
3. lulz

**stealthify** · 11-13-2012, 03:29 AM

Samsung is always a few steps behind:
Apple rethinking Samsung chip partnership, say sources | Business Tech - CNET News

Even going back to 2011:
Apple moving away from Samsung memory components | TUAW - The Unofficial Apple Weblog

It wasn't a relationship that was meant to last.

**IPD** · 11-13-2012, 04:17 AM

of course it's not going to last. i think everyone is aware of that. might as well fleece them while you've got them--they certainly aren't doing you any favors in return.

p.s.

i maintain moving away from mainstream chips is going to hurt apple's marketshare.

**stealthify** · 11-13-2012, 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by IPD

they certainly aren't doing you any favors in return.

The same can certainly be said about Samsung. With so much conflicting interests going on between these two companies I'm honestly surprised Apple didn't invest its boatloads of cash to transition away sooner.

As far as moving away from mainstream chips hurting Apple's marketshare; it'll be really interested to see what comes of this. If Apple falls behind and is no longer able to keep up with the speed and efficiency of the mainstream chips... we'll have a problem on our hands. If, by some miracle, Apple is able to do something with their own chips that the competition can't easily match, this could be great for Apple. Guess we'll see.

**IPD** · 11-13-2012, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by stealthify

The same can certainly be said about Samsung. With so much conflicting interests going on between these two companies I'm honestly surprised Apple didn't invest its boatloads of cash to transition away sooner.

As far as moving away from mainstream chips hurting Apple's marketshare; it'll be really interested to see what comes of this. If Apple falls behind and is no longer able to keep up with the speed and efficiency of the mainstream chips... we'll have a problem on our hands. If, by some miracle, Apple is able to do something with their own chips that the competition can't easily match, this could be great for Apple. Guess we'll see.

it didn't go well for them before switching to intel. i'll say that much.