Two Ways Samsung’s Court Loss To Apple Is Actually Good For Google

In the wake of Samsung’s $1.05 billion punch in the nose from Apple in their high-stakes patent trial, the general reaction seems to be that Samsung’s loss is also a major setback for Google and Android. That’s not necessarily the whole story. In some ways, Apple could actually be doing Google an unintended favor.

For the most part, Google’s statement to the press issued Sunday has been portrayed as if Google is running for the hills. But there is another way to interpret Google’s statement. Google is also sending a clear message to the Android community: it’s our way or the hard way.

Google’s statement is brief and to the point:

“The court of appeals will review both infringement and the validity of the patent claims. Most of these don’t relate to the core Android operating system, and several are being re-examined by the US Patent Office. The mobile industry is moving fast and all players — including newcomers — are building upon ideas that have been around for decades. We work with our partners to give consumers innovative and affordable products, and we don’t want anything to limit that.”

The emphasis about the core Android operating system is important, because it highlights the fact that many the features that were found to infringe on Apple’s iOS patents in the trial were features added by Samsung. That means they are not Google’s problem.

Google appears to be trying to walk a tightrope: support its stalwart vendor Samsung while not getting directly involved and possibly implicating Android itself as a patent violator. The end result is a statement that is predictably weak on both points.

But the broader message for smartphone vendors - and consumers - is that the Google way for Android is the best way to avoid further litigation woes. Google seems to be saying that if the Android vendors stick closer to the core Android operating system - and not try to add on so many of their own bells and whistles, they’ll be more likely to avoid the kinds of disasters that sliced 7% off Samsung’s market cap on Monday.

That’s not really altruism for Google: a more unified Android ecosystem would be a big win for the search engine giant. And this position is not without precedent; Google has been explicit about restraining vendor modifications to Android, even if its suggestions have fallen on deaf ears. According to a trial brief filed by Apple, Google had apparently warned Samsung that the design specs for “Samsung’s ‘P1’ and ‘P3’ tablets (Galaxy Tab and Galaxy Tab 10.1) were ‘too similar’ to the iPad and demanded ‘distinguishable design vis-à-vis the iPad for the P3.’”

Samsung apparently didn’t listen or didn’t care. If the jury’s findings are upheld, they just got smacked in the face for their lack of attention to Google’s heads up.

Android has often been criticized for the fragmentation the open source platform undergoes every time a hardware vendor makes modifications to the core Android platform in order to differentiate itself from the vendor’s competitors. In addition to confusing Android users who switch brands, such modifications have made it difficult for application developers to write apps that work on all Android device/OS combos.

In the past, Google has had to shrug its shoulders and point to the openness of the Android platform as the cause. But now two factors are helping Google control such fragmentation.

First is Google’s acquisition of Motorola Mobility. Having a “home” platform for Android gives Google the ability to firmly call the shots for Android development on at least one major player in the mobile device market. Given past patent and copyright lawsuits, Google will work very hard to ensure that Motorola’s version of Android is as bulletproof as possible against such challenges. That design mission, coupled with Motorola’s own rather healthy patent portfolio, should be enough to hold off all but the biggest litigants.

Motorola’s “safe” platform could also serve as a beacon for other Android vendors: a version of Android that’s less vulnerable to lawsuits could be very attractive to Motorola’s competition, even if it means working more closely within Android’s core look and feel.

Second, while Google can’t be thrilled with Android’s name being dragged through the mud in various court cases, the payoff could be worth it. Android device vendors will either learn to conform more closely to the core Android design or risk finding themselves on the receiving end of Apple’s legal stick.

That makes Apple’s court victory a potential win-win for Google. Getting more core Android-compliant devices on the market should make the mobile operating system as a whole more attractive to app developers, which would make the overall ecosystem that much richer. And when Android vendors don’t play ball, they run the risk of being sued by a very aggressive Apple, while Google doesn't have to say a word.

Sure, court battles embroil Android in more mud-slinging - at least by proxy. But they’re less likely to affect Motorola products, which can be expected to use core Android.

Obviously, Google would rather see Apple back off and compete in the market rather than in the courtroom. But if court cases hand you lemons, getting a more unified Android vendor community out of this situation would definitely be a sweet glass of lemonade.

Top image courtesy of Pamela Robinson.

Lemonade image courtesy of Shutterstock.

Driven by breakthrough thinking and a wide-open sense of what's possible, Alcatel-Lucent delivers the world's most advanced technologies to companies all across the globe. Our driving motivation is to realize the potential of the connected world - by providing the technologies needed to turn networks into engines of sustainable economic growth, social development and opportunity. We provide a comprehensive suite of software solutions and services offerings designed specifically to meet the needs and demands of communication network operators and strategic industries. These solutions allow our customers to optimize network costs and quickly deploy innovative, value added products and services for their subscribers that increase loyalty and create new revenue streams. To learn more about how we're turning the network into a platform, visit http://www2.alcatel-lucent.com/hln/network_evolution.php

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Read more »

Apple And Samsung Both Lost. So Did Buyers

The fallout from Apple’s win over Samsung in a California patent court has been an extension of the rhetoric that took place within the court. Apple, smug after its billion-dollar settlement, claims the whole case was about values. Samsung still holds to the line that Apple’s design patents are frivolous and the real loser is the consumer. Neither side is wrong.

As much as Apple and Samsung want everybody to believe that one is on the side of good while the other is completely evil, the reality is that that is just not true. It is possible to not be right while not precisely being wrong. 

Apple’s CEO Tim Cook called the victory a triumph of values. 

“For us this lawsuit has always been about something much more important than patents or money. It’s about values. We value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. And we do this to delight our customers, not for competitors to flagrantly copy,” Cook wrote in a memo leaked to 9to5 Mac.  

Cook is not wrong, but he is not correct. Apple is right to defend itself against copying. But, it is not like Apple was defending the invention of fire. It was defending design patents based on the size and shape of the iPad and iPhone as well as utility patents used in iOS.

None of the patents that Apple fought tooth and nail over in the name of values are particularly innovative.

The utility patents may have some functions specific to iOS, but the Android manufacturers have already figured a way around most of those because it was not the function that Apple patented so much as how the function is performed. Companies like HTC, Samsung and Motorola have been working on ways to circumvent those patents through design and functional updates to their devices, and Apple will have little grounds in court to sue the Android manufacturers over these same functions again.

The patents themselves are just weapons against Samsung and other Android manufacturers.

The settlement money is also of no concern to Apple. This is a company that is one of the most valuable in the history of the world, sitting on a $100 billion in liquid assets. But taking a billion dollars from Samsung was a reward in itself.

Cook’s comments about values is public relations. Most journalists, analysts and tech enthusiasts have a better understanding of Apple’s motivations under the surface. Apple's two biggest motivations were to set a precedent for all its upcoming patent cases and to slow the Android ecosystem's growth. The more Apple can hobble Android, the more iPhones and iPads it can sell. With Apple’s extraordinarily high margins, there is a lot of money on the table.

The effect on Samsung is marginal in the short term. This case was mostly about Samsung’s long product tail, with devices that had been on the market a year or more running software that has been completely overhauled to avoid these specific Apple patents. 

Samsung will likely appeal the judgment, mostly to avoid the precedent that the case sets. This is not the last time these two companies will meet in court over patents. Apple’s win makes it more likely that its similar patent cases against Samsung and other Android manufacturers will result in injunctions against Android devices. Samsung needs to negate that precedent.

After the announcement of the verdict, Samsung issued a statement:

“Today’s verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies.”

It is difficult to believe both companies. Samsung says that Apple’s win is bad for innovation. Apple said it is good for innovation. Again, neither company is right, but neither is wrong.

When Apple speaks of innovation, it is not talking about the broad scope of technology innovation. Apple is talking about its own innovation. Innovation that has been called into question many times over the years. Apple is seen as a company that makes technologies better and sexier and prices its devices higher than the competition to pad its margins. 

Samsung is essentially saying that Apple’s designs and its legal claims are frivolous. It is implying that if Apple can improve on technologies and not be found guilty of copying, then so can we.

Samsung certainly has a high opinion of itself. By calling the verdict “a loss for the American consumer” it is saying that its products are so good that the U.S. consumer will suffer for the loss. It is the same tactic that Samsung has used in most of its court cases against Apple across the world. “This bully is bad for us, bad for you, bad for everybody.” 

Samsung itself is a bit of a bully. It has the manufacturing might to flood the mobile market with so many devices at so many price points that it is squeezing not just Apple, but the other Android manufacturers. Motorola’s market presence is almost non-existent at this point and HTC is flailing. Samsung, not Apple, is the biggest culprit behind Nokia’s fall from grace. Samsung’s shotgun strategy works and cannot (or, cannot without great difficulty) be replicated by any other Android manufacturer. 

Samsung’s own rhetoric is as hypocritical as Apple’s. While Samsung claims it did not copy Apple in the slightest way (and it has a case for that, despite the jury’s verdict), there is no question that some of Samsung’s smartphones do look very similar to the iPhone. 

In the end, the outcome was predictable. Can anyone say that Samsung could win a case with a Californian jury in the shadow of Cupertino? Samsung never really stood a chance. 

The battle of rhetoric does neither company justice. Apple comes off with a morality play that is almost laughable. Samsung sounds like a whining, arrogant twit that insists it did nothing wrong. With this decision, all Android manufacturers lose, not just Samsung. In the end, that is how the American consumer loses too.

That means Google loses, too, right? That's not necessarily the whole story. Apple could be doing Google a favor with its courtroom war. 

Driven by breakthrough thinking and a wide-open sense of what's possible, Alcatel-Lucent delivers the world's most advanced technologies to companies all across the globe. Our driving motivation is to realize the potential of the connected world - by providing the technologies needed to turn networks into engines of sustainable economic growth, social development and opportunity. We provide a comprehensive suite of software solutions and services offerings designed specifically to meet the needs and demands of communication network operators and strategic industries. These solutions allow our customers to optimize network costs and quickly deploy innovative, value added products and services for their subscribers that increase loyalty and create new revenue streams. To learn more about how we're turning the network into a platform, visit http://www2.alcatel-lucent.com/hln/network_evolution.php

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Read more »

Two Ways Samsung’s Court Loss To Apple Is Actually Good For Google

In the wake of Samsung’s $1.05 billion punch in the nose from Apple in their high-stakes patent trial, the general reaction seems to be that Samsung’s loss is also a major setback for Google and Android. That’s not necessarily the whole story. In some ways, Apple could actually be doing Google an unintended favor.

For the most part, Google’s statement to the press issued Sunday has been portrayed as if Google is running for the hills. But there is another way to interpret Google’s statement. Google is also sending a clear message to the Android community: it’s our way or the hard way.

Google’s statement is brief and to the point:

“The court of appeals will review both infringement and the validity of the patent claims. Most of these don’t relate to the core Android operating system, and several are being re-examined by the US Patent Office. The mobile industry is moving fast and all players — including newcomers — are building upon ideas that have been around for decades. We work with our partners to give consumers innovative and affordable products, and we don’t want anything to limit that.”

The emphasis about the core Android operating system is important, because it highlights the fact that many the features that were found to infringe on Apple’s iOS patents in the trial were features added by Samsung. That means they are not Google’s problem.

Google appears to be trying to walk a tightrope: support its stalwart vendor Samsung while not getting directly involved and possibly implicating Android itself as a patent violator. The end result is a statement that is predictably weak on both points.

But the broader message for smartphone vendors - and consumers - is that the Google way for Android is the best way to avoid further litigation woes. Google seems to be saying that if the Android vendors stick closer to the core Android operating system - and not try to add on so many of their own bells and whistles, they’ll be more likely to avoid the kinds of disasters that sliced 7% off Samsung’s market cap on Monday.

That’s not really altruism for Google: a more unified Android ecosystem would be a big win for the search engine giant. And this position is not without precedent; Google has been explicit about restraining vendor modifications to Android, even if its suggestions have fallen on deaf ears. According to a trial brief filed by Apple, Google had apparently warned Samsung that the design specs for “Samsung’s ‘P1’ and ‘P3’ tablets (Galaxy Tab and Galaxy Tab 10.1) were ‘too similar’ to the iPad and demanded ‘distinguishable design vis-à-vis the iPad for the P3.’”

Samsung apparently didn’t listen or didn’t care. If the jury’s findings are upheld, they just got smacked in the face for their lack of attention to Google’s heads up.

Android has often been criticized for the fragmentation the open source platform undergoes every time a hardware vendor makes modifications to the core Android platform in order to differentiate itself from the vendor’s competitors. In addition to confusing Android users who switch brands, such modifications have made it difficult for application developers to write apps that work on all Android device/OS combos.

In the past, Google has had to shrug its shoulders and point to the openness of the Android platform as the cause. But now two factors are helping Google control such fragmentation.

First is Google’s acquisition of Motorola Mobility. Having a “home” platform for Android gives Google the ability to firmly call the shots for Android development on at least one major player in the mobile device market. Given past patent and copyright lawsuits, Google will work very hard to ensure that Motorola’s version of Android is as bulletproof as possible against such challenges. That design mission, coupled with Motorola’s own rather healthy patent portfolio, should be enough to hold off all but the biggest litigants.

Motorola’s “safe” platform could also serve as a beacon for other Android vendors: a version of Android that’s less vulnerable to lawsuits could be very attractive to Motorola’s competition, even if it means working more closely within Android’s core look and feel.

Second, while Google can’t be thrilled with Android’s name being dragged through the mud in various court cases, the payoff could be worth it. Android device vendors will either learn to conform more closely to the core Android design or risk finding themselves on the receiving end of Apple’s legal stick.

That makes Apple’s court victory a potential win-win for Google. Getting more core Android-compliant devices on the market should make the mobile operating system as a whole more attractive to app developers, which would make the overall ecosystem that much richer. And when Android vendors don’t play ball, they run the risk of being sued by a very aggressive Apple, while Google doesn't have to say a word.

Sure, court battles embroil Android in more mud-slinging - at least by proxy. But they’re less likely to affect Motorola products, which can be expected to use core Android.

Obviously, Google would rather see Apple back off and compete in the market rather than in the courtroom. But if court cases hand you lemons, getting a more unified Android vendor community out of this situation would definitely be a sweet glass of lemonade.

Top image courtesy of Pamela Robinson.

Lemonade image courtesy of Shutterstock.

Driven by breakthrough thinking and a wide-open sense of what's possible, Alcatel-Lucent delivers the world's most advanced technologies to companies all across the globe. Our driving motivation is to realize the potential of the connected world - by providing the technologies needed to turn networks into engines of sustainable economic growth, social development and opportunity. We provide a comprehensive suite of software solutions and services offerings designed specifically to meet the needs and demands of communication network operators and strategic industries. These solutions allow our customers to optimize network costs and quickly deploy innovative, value added products and services for their subscribers that increase loyalty and create new revenue streams. To learn more about how we're turning the network into a platform, visit http://www2.alcatel-lucent.com/hln/network_evolution.php

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Read more »

Apple And Samsung Both Lost. So Did Buyers

The fallout from Apple’s win over Samsung in a California patent court has been an extension of the rhetoric that took place within the court. Apple, smug after its billion-dollar settlement, claims the whole case was about values. Samsung still holds to the line that Apple’s design patents are frivolous and the real loser is the consumer. Neither side is wrong.

As much as Apple and Samsung want everybody to believe that one is on the side of good while the other is completely evil, the reality is that that is just not true. It is possible to not be right while not precisely being wrong. 

Apple’s CEO Tim Cook called the victory a triumph of values. 

“For us this lawsuit has always been about something much more important than patents or money. It’s about values. We value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. And we do this to delight our customers, not for competitors to flagrantly copy,” Cook wrote in a memo leaked to 9to5 Mac.  

Cook is not wrong, but he is not correct. Apple is right to defend itself against copying. But, it is not like Apple was defending the invention of fire. It was defending design patents based on the size and shape of the iPad and iPhone as well as utility patents used in iOS.

None of the patents that Apple fought tooth and nail over in the name of values are particularly innovative.

The utility patents may have some functions specific to iOS, but the Android manufacturers have already figured a way around most of those because it was not the function that Apple patented so much as how the function is performed. Companies like HTC, Samsung and Motorola have been working on ways to circumvent those patents through design and functional updates to their devices, and Apple will have little grounds in court to sue the Android manufacturers over these same functions again.

The patents themselves are just weapons against Samsung and other Android manufacturers.

The settlement money is also of no concern to Apple. This is a company that is one of the most valuable in the history of the world, sitting on a $100 billion in liquid assets. But taking a billion dollars from Samsung was a reward in itself.

Cook’s comments about values is public relations. Most journalists, analysts and tech enthusiasts have a better understanding of Apple’s motivations under the surface. Apple's two biggest motivations were to set a precedent for all its upcoming patent cases and to slow the Android ecosystem's growth. The more Apple can hobble Android, the more iPhones and iPads it can sell. With Apple’s extraordinarily high margins, there is a lot of money on the table.

The effect on Samsung is marginal in the short term. This case was mostly about Samsung’s long product tail, with devices that had been on the market a year or more running software that has been completely overhauled to avoid these specific Apple patents. 

Samsung will likely appeal the judgment, mostly to avoid the precedent that the case sets. This is not the last time these two companies will meet in court over patents. Apple’s win makes it more likely that its similar patent cases against Samsung and other Android manufacturers will result in injunctions against Android devices. Samsung needs to negate that precedent.

After the announcement of the verdict, Samsung issued a statement:

“Today’s verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies.”

It is difficult to believe both companies. Samsung says that Apple’s win is bad for innovation. Apple said it is good for innovation. Again, neither company is right, but neither is wrong.

When Apple speaks of innovation, it is not talking about the broad scope of technology innovation. Apple is talking about its own innovation. Innovation that has been called into question many times over the years. Apple is seen as a company that makes technologies better and sexier and prices its devices higher than the competition to pad its margins. 

Samsung is essentially saying that Apple’s designs and its legal claims are frivolous. It is implying that if Apple can improve on technologies and not be found guilty of copying, then so can we.

Samsung certainly has a high opinion of itself. By calling the verdict “a loss for the American consumer” it is saying that its products are so good that the U.S. consumer will suffer for the loss. It is the same tactic that Samsung has used in most of its court cases against Apple across the world. “This bully is bad for us, bad for you, bad for everybody.” 

Samsung itself is a bit of a bully. It has the manufacturing might to flood the mobile market with so many devices at so many price points that it is squeezing not just Apple, but the other Android manufacturers. Motorola’s market presence is almost non-existent at this point and HTC is flailing. Samsung, not Apple, is the biggest culprit behind Nokia’s fall from grace. Samsung’s shotgun strategy works and cannot (or, cannot without great difficulty) be replicated by any other Android manufacturer. 

Samsung’s own rhetoric is as hypocritical as Apple’s. While Samsung claims it did not copy Apple in the slightest way (and it has a case for that, despite the jury’s verdict), there is no question that some of Samsung’s smartphones do look very similar to the iPhone. 

In the end, the outcome was predictable. Can anyone say that Samsung could win a case with a Californian jury in the shadow of Cupertino? Samsung never really stood a chance. 

The battle of rhetoric does neither company justice. Apple comes off with a morality play that is almost laughable. Samsung sounds like a whining, arrogant twit that insists it did nothing wrong. With this decision, all Android manufacturers lose, not just Samsung. In the end, that is how the American consumer loses too.

That means Google loses, too, right? That's not necessarily the whole story. Apple could be doing Google a favor with its courtroom war. 

Driven by breakthrough thinking and a wide-open sense of what's possible, Alcatel-Lucent delivers the world's most advanced technologies to companies all across the globe. Our driving motivation is to realize the potential of the connected world - by providing the technologies needed to turn networks into engines of sustainable economic growth, social development and opportunity. We provide a comprehensive suite of software solutions and services offerings designed specifically to meet the needs and demands of communication network operators and strategic industries. These solutions allow our customers to optimize network costs and quickly deploy innovative, value added products and services for their subscribers that increase loyalty and create new revenue streams. To learn more about how we're turning the network into a platform, visit http://www2.alcatel-lucent.com/hln/network_evolution.php

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Read more »

Apple Wants Injunction Against 8 Samsung Phones

Apple has requested an injuction against the sale of eight Samsung devices. The move follows its patent-infringement victory over Samsung.

According to The Verge, Apple is requesting injunctions against sales of eight Samsung devicess (see the court document here). Apple is going after some of Samsung’s most popular 2011 products. 

Apple’s list includes iterations of the Galaxy S II, which was widely considered to be the best Android smartphone of 2011. The S II came in a variety of flavors as Samsung tweaked the device for U.S. mobile carriers. 

According to The Verge, the list includes:

Galaxy S 4GGalaxy S2 (AT&T)Galaxy S2 (Skyrocket)Galaxy S2 (T-Mobile)Galaxy S2 Epic 4GGalaxy S ShowcaseDroid ChargeGalaxy Prevail

In the just-adjourned patent-infringement suit, 25 Samsung devices were found to infringe on one or more of Apple's patents. Many of those devices are older or generate marginal sales (such as the original Galaxy S, Fascinate and Captivate). But, the S II is a popular phone globally. In June, Samsung said it had sold 28 million S II's worldwide. (Note: Samsung says sales but it is actually units shipped.) Overall, 50 million Galaxy S and S II units had been sold as of June. 

See: A Brief History of the Samsung Galaxy

Apple's patent suit did not challenge Samsung products launched after the case was filed, models including the Galaxy S III, Galaxy Note and others. Apple’s main target with the injunction is the profitable long tail of Samsung’s mobile-product line. Every Galaxy S II sold is one fewer iPhone sold. 

Driven by breakthrough thinking and a wide-open sense of what's possible, Alcatel-Lucent delivers the world's most advanced technologies to companies all across the globe. Our driving motivation is to realize the potential of the connected world - by providing the technologies needed to turn networks into engines of sustainable economic growth, social development and opportunity. We provide a comprehensive suite of software solutions and services offerings designed specifically to meet the needs and demands of communication network operators and strategic industries. These solutions allow our customers to optimize network costs and quickly deploy innovative, value added products and services for their subscribers that increase loyalty and create new revenue streams. To learn more about how we're turning the network into a platform, visit http://www2.alcatel-lucent.com/hln/network_evolution.php

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Read more »

Apple And Samsung Both Lost. So Did Buyers

The fallout from Apple’s win over Samsung in a California patent court has been an extension of the rhetoric that took place within the court. Apple, smug after its billion-dollar settlement, claims the whole case was about values. Samsung still holds to the line that Apple’s design patents are frivolous and the real loser is the consumer. Neither side is wrong.

As much as Apple and Samsung want everybody to believe that one is on the side of good while the other is completely evil, the reality is that that is just not true. It is possible to not be right while not precisely being wrong. 

Apple’s CEO Tim Cook called the victory a triumph of values. 

“For us this lawsuit has always been about something much more important than patents or money. It’s about values. We value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. And we do this to delight our customers, not for competitors to flagrantly copy,” Cook wrote in a memo leaked to 9to5 Mac.  

Cook is not wrong, but he is not correct. Apple is right to defend itself against copying. But, it is not like Apple was defending the invention of fire. It was defending design patents based on the size and shape of the iPad and iPhone as well as utility patents used in iOS.

None of the patents that Apple fought tooth and nail over in the name of values are particularly innovative.

The utility patents may have some functions specific to iOS, but the Android manufacturers have already figured a way around most of those because it was not the function that Apple patented so much as how the function is performed. Companies like HTC, Samsung and Motorola have been working on ways to circumvent those patents through design and functional updates to their devices, and Apple will have little grounds in court to sue the Android manufacturers over these same functions again.

The patents themselves are just weapons against Samsung and other Android manufacturers.

The settlement money is also of no concern to Apple. This is a company that is one of the most valuable in the history of the world, sitting on a $100 billion in liquid assets. But taking a billion dollars from Samsung was a reward in itself.

Cook’s comments about values is public relations. Most journalists, analysts and tech enthusiasts have a better understanding of Apple’s motivations under the surface. Apple's two biggest motivations were to set a precedent for all its upcoming patent cases and to slow the Android ecosystem's growth. The more Apple can hobble Android, the more iPhones and iPads it can sell. With Apple’s extraordinarily high margins, there is a lot of money on the table.

The effect on Samsung is marginal in the short term. This case was mostly about Samsung’s long product tail, with devices that had been on the market a year or more running software that has been completely overhauled to avoid these specific Apple patents. 

Samsung will likely appeal the judgment, mostly to avoid the precedent that the case sets. This is not the last time these two companies will meet in court over patents. Apple’s win makes it more likely that its similar patent cases against Samsung and other Android manufacturers will result in injunctions against Android devices. Samsung needs to negate that precedent.

After the announcement of the verdict, Samsung issued a statement:

“Today’s verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies.”

It is difficult to believe both companies. Samsung says that Apple’s win is bad for innovation. Apple said it is good for innovation. Again, neither company is right, but neither is wrong.

When Apple speaks of innovation, it is not talking about the broad scope of technology innovation. Apple is talking about its own innovation. Innovation that has been called into question many times over the years. Apple is seen as a company that makes technologies better and sexier and prices its devices higher than the competition to pad its margins. 

Samsung is essentially saying that Apple’s designs and its legal claims are frivolous. It is implying that if Apple can improve on technologies and not be found guilty of copying, then so can we.

Samsung certainly has a high opinion of itself. By calling the verdict “a loss for the American consumer” it is saying that its products are so good that the U.S. consumer will suffer for the loss. It is the same tactic that Samsung has used in most of its court cases against Apple across the world. “This bully is bad for us, bad for you, bad for everybody.” 

Samsung itself is a bit of a bully. It has the manufacturing might to flood the mobile market with so many devices at so many price points that it is squeezing not just Apple, but the other Android manufacturers. Motorola’s market presence is almost non-existent at this point and HTC is flailing. Samsung, not Apple, is the biggest culprit behind Nokia’s fall from grace. Samsung’s shotgun strategy works and cannot (or, cannot without great difficulty) be replicated by any other Android manufacturer. 

Samsung’s own rhetoric is as hypocritical as Apple’s. While Samsung claims it did not copy Apple in the slightest way (and it has a case for that, despite the jury’s verdict), there is no question that some of Samsung’s smartphones do look very similar to the iPhone. 

In the end, the outcome was predictable. Can anyone say that Samsung could win a case with a Californian jury in the shadow of Cupertino? Samsung never really stood a chance. 

The battle of rhetoric does neither company justice. Apple comes off with a morality play that is almost laughable. Samsung sounds like a whining, arrogant twit that insists it did nothing wrong. With this decision, all Android manufacturers lose, not just Samsung. In the end, that is how the American consumer loses too.

That means Google loses, too, right? That's not necessarily the whole story. Apple could be doing Google a favor with its courtroom war. 

Driven by breakthrough thinking and a wide-open sense of what's possible, Alcatel-Lucent delivers the world's most advanced technologies to companies all across the globe. Our driving motivation is to realize the potential of the connected world - by providing the technologies needed to turn networks into engines of sustainable economic growth, social development and opportunity. We provide a comprehensive suite of software solutions and services offerings designed specifically to meet the needs and demands of communication network operators and strategic industries. These solutions allow our customers to optimize network costs and quickly deploy innovative, value added products and services for their subscribers that increase loyalty and create new revenue streams. To learn more about how we're turning the network into a platform, visit http://www2.alcatel-lucent.com/hln/network_evolution.php

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Read more »

Apple Wants Injunction Against 8 Samsung Phones

Apple has requested an injuction against the sale of eight Samsung devices. The move follows its patent-infringement victory over Samsung.

According to The Verge, Apple is requesting injunctions against sales of eight Samsung devicess (see the court document here). Apple is going after some of Samsung’s most popular 2011 products. 

Apple’s list includes iterations of the Galaxy S II, which was widely considered to be the best Android smartphone of 2011. The S II came in a variety of flavors as Samsung tweaked the device for U.S. mobile carriers. 

According to The Verge, the list includes:

Galaxy S 4GGalaxy S2 (AT&T)Galaxy S2 (Skyrocket)Galaxy S2 (T-Mobile)Galaxy S2 Epic 4GGalaxy S ShowcaseDroid ChargeGalaxy Prevail

In the just-adjourned patent-infringement suit, 25 Samsung devices were found to infringe on one or more of Apple's patents. Many of those devices are older or generate marginal sales (such as the original Galaxy S, Fascinate and Captivate). But, the S II is a popular phone globally. In June, Samsung said it had sold 28 million S II's worldwide. (Note: Samsung says sales but it is actually units shipped.) Overall, 50 million Galaxy S and S II units had been sold as of June. 

See: A Brief History of the Samsung Galaxy

Apple's patent suit did not challenge Samsung products launched after the case was filed, models including the Galaxy S III, Galaxy Note and others. Apple’s main target with the injunction is the profitable long tail of Samsung’s mobile-product line. Every Galaxy S II sold is one fewer iPhone sold. 

Driven by breakthrough thinking and a wide-open sense of what's possible, Alcatel-Lucent delivers the world's most advanced technologies to companies all across the globe. Our driving motivation is to realize the potential of the connected world - by providing the technologies needed to turn networks into engines of sustainable economic growth, social development and opportunity. We provide a comprehensive suite of software solutions and services offerings designed specifically to meet the needs and demands of communication network operators and strategic industries. These solutions allow our customers to optimize network costs and quickly deploy innovative, value added products and services for their subscribers that increase loyalty and create new revenue streams. To learn more about how we're turning the network into a platform, visit http://www2.alcatel-lucent.com/hln/network_evolution.php

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Read more »

Two Ways Samsung’s Court Loss To Apple Is Actually Good For Google

In the wake of Samsung’s $1.05 billion punch in the nose from Apple in their high-stakes patent trial, the general reaction seems to be that Samsung’s loss is also a major setback for Google and Android. That’s not necessarily the whole story. In some ways, Apple could actually be doing Google an unintended favor.

For the most part, Google’s statement to the press issued Sunday has been portrayed as if Google is running for the hills. But there is another way to interpret Google’s statement. Google is also sending a clear message to the Android community: it’s our way or the hard way.

Google’s statement is brief and to the point:

“The court of appeals will review both infringement and the validity of the patent claims. Most of these don’t relate to the core Android operating system, and several are being re-examined by the US Patent Office. The mobile industry is moving fast and all players — including newcomers — are building upon ideas that have been around for decades. We work with our partners to give consumers innovative and affordable products, and we don’t want anything to limit that.”

The emphasis about the core Android operating system is important, because it highlights the fact that many the features that were found to infringe on Apple’s iOS patents in the trial were features added by Samsung. That means they are not Google’s problem.

Google appears to be trying to walk a tightrope: support its stalwart vendor Samsung while not getting directly involved and possibly implicating Android itself as a patent violator. The end result is a statement that is predictably weak on both points.

But the broader message for smartphone vendors - and consumers - is that the Google way for Android is the best way to avoid further litigation woes. Google seems to be saying that if the Android vendors stick closer to the core Android operating system - and not try to add on so many of their own bells and whistles, they’ll be more likely to avoid the kinds of disasters that sliced 7% off Samsung’s market cap on Monday.

That’s not really altruism for Google: a more unified Android ecosystem would be a big win for the search engine giant. And this position is not without precedent; Google has been explicit about restraining vendor modifications to Android, even if its suggestions have fallen on deaf ears. According to a trial brief filed by Apple, Google had apparently warned Samsung that the design specs for “Samsung’s ‘P1’ and ‘P3’ tablets (Galaxy Tab and Galaxy Tab 10.1) were ‘too similar’ to the iPad and demanded ‘distinguishable design vis-à-vis the iPad for the P3.’”

Samsung apparently didn’t listen or didn’t care. If the jury’s findings are upheld, they just got smacked in the face for their lack of attention to Google’s heads up.

Android has often been criticized for the fragmentation the open source platform undergoes every time a hardware vendor makes modifications to the core Android platform in order to differentiate itself from the vendor’s competitors. In addition to confusing Android users who switch brands, such modifications have made it difficult for application developers to write apps that work on all Android device/OS combos.

In the past, Google has had to shrug its shoulders and point to the openness of the Android platform as the cause. But now two factors are helping Google control such fragmentation.

First is Google’s acquisition of Motorola Mobility. Having a “home” platform for Android gives Google the ability to firmly call the shots for Android development on at least one major player in the mobile device market. Given past patent and copyright lawsuits, Google will work very hard to ensure that Motorola’s version of Android is as bulletproof as possible against such challenges. That design mission, coupled with Motorola’s own rather healthy patent portfolio, should be enough to hold off all but the biggest litigants.

Motorola’s “safe” platform could also serve as a beacon for other Android vendors: a version of Android that’s less vulnerable to lawsuits could be very attractive to Motorola’s competition, even if it means working more closely within Android’s core look and feel.

Second, while Google can’t be thrilled with Android’s name being dragged through the mud in various court cases, the payoff could be worth it. Android device vendors will either learn to conform more closely to the core Android design or risk finding themselves on the receiving end of Apple’s legal stick.

That makes Apple’s court victory a potential win-win for Google. Getting more core Android-compliant devices on the market should make the mobile operating system as a whole more attractive to app developers, which would make the overall ecosystem that much richer. And when Android vendors don’t play ball, they run the risk of being sued by a very aggressive Apple, while Google doesn't have to say a word.

Sure, court battles embroil Android in more mud-slinging - at least by proxy. But they’re less likely to affect Motorola products, which can be expected to use core Android.

Obviously, Google would rather see Apple back off and compete in the market rather than in the courtroom. But if court cases hand you lemons, getting a more unified Android vendor community out of this situation would definitely be a sweet glass of lemonade.

Top image courtesy of Pamela Robinson.

Lemonade image courtesy of Shutterstock.

Driven by breakthrough thinking and a wide-open sense of what's possible, Alcatel-Lucent delivers the world's most advanced technologies to companies all across the globe. Our driving motivation is to realize the potential of the connected world - by providing the technologies needed to turn networks into engines of sustainable economic growth, social development and opportunity. We provide a comprehensive suite of software solutions and services offerings designed specifically to meet the needs and demands of communication network operators and strategic industries. These solutions allow our customers to optimize network costs and quickly deploy innovative, value added products and services for their subscribers that increase loyalty and create new revenue streams. To learn more about how we're turning the network into a platform, visit http://www2.alcatel-lucent.com/hln/network_evolution.php

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Read more »