I was giving them the benefit of doubt until the judgement has been passed. I'm very interested in how this pans out as I assume it could have quite far-reaching ramifications; not least for Samsung's US lawyers.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Samsung's Request to Delay Investigation of Apple-Nokia Patent License Leaks Denied
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I was giving them the benefit of doubt until the judgement has been passed. I'm very interested in how this pans out as I assume it could have quite far-reaching ramifications; not least for Samsung's US lawyers.
The OP stated "products". Why is this argument about Samsung components used so often? If I buy an iPhone, I am not buying a Samsung PRODUCT. I don't care how many Samsung components it has inside. Apple ultimately controls the supply base and is responsible to their customer for the quality of the final product and its constituent components. Based on that, the OP can be consistent in saying he/she will never buy a Samsung branded product even though he/she may buy or already own several Apple products.
Let's just shut them down. No more Samsung products in America. What would happen then?
Now that Microsoft own Nokia, they should aggressively go after Samsung for violating those rules.
This should both give them a way to gain lost income, AND give them a stronger legal position for future innovation (as Samsung will copy them).
My understanding in Chinese and Korean view of patents is it is different then western, a cultural aspect, not law.
This should both give them a way to gain lost income, AND give them a stronger legal position for future innovation (as Samsung will copy them).
My understanding in Chinese and Korean view of patents is it is different then western, a cultural aspect, not law.
Probably because whomever makes such a statement is making a deep personal commitment to not in any way (directly or indirectly) support a company which expresses values or practices which they dislike, hate, despise, etc. The point being made with the component argument is that it is unfortunately difficult to not support Samsung indirectly. Perhaps this isn't an issue, but I find myself somewhat sharing the sentiment and regret the truth that my money will find its way into their coffers regardless.
I understand what you're saying but part of it is making an outward statement in not supporting Samsung by owning any Samsung branded products. I don't think you're being hypocritical in stating you will never buy Samsung products while typing that on your iPhone 5S. It would be, however, if you had a Samsung product hanging on your wall or keeping your milk cold or washing your jeans.
I came here to post the very same thing!
Makes me chuckle the way the keyboard commentators on here absolutely berate Samsung without knowing all the facts and not realising that without them many of their beloved products likely wouldn't even exist. Not in the form they currently know them anyway.
And why do you assume that they don't already know Samsung may manufacture some of the components residing in devices they already own? There's nothing wrong with stating you'll never buy a Samsung PRODUCT, and buying an iPhone.
Better stop buying Apple products then. In fact, I doubt you'll have much choice since Samsung make quite a lot of components for quite a lot of companies.
Good luck.
Yeah, I guess. The worst thing about this is the media coverage they get. Be it bad, but still free media.
You know, it's also entirely possible to be fully aware of the vast reach of Samsung's various industries (not just component manufacture and branded goods, but Samsung Heavy Industries, Samsung Construction & Trading, insurance, etc), and to acknowledge that they make some nice products (both at the macro and component level), while also pointing out that the company seems to have very, very serious ethical issues with its upper management and, at least in the case of its consumer electronics division, the engineering as well (thinking about the benchmark fudging here).
This case, further, doesn't relate to the components division of the company (or the construction, or insurance, or apparel branches, for that matter); it's related specifically to the consumer electronics division.
I know for a fact that the chairman of the the Samsung group is a convicted criminal--that's not in dispute anywhere. I don't know enough about any of their other business dealings to know how the corporate culture is in them. I do know that the consumer electronics division seems to have very, very severe ethical problems, ranging form patent abuse, to this sort of flagrant abuse of legal privilege, to things like coding to cheat on benchmarks.
I don't know how far the upper-management corruption goes into their component businesses, although since it exists at the very top they can't be entirely clean.
And when you're dealing with a company that has that sort of broad and deep reach into products everywhere, I don't see the great cognitive dissonance in saying "I'm going to choose to buy things that aren't explicitly branded Samsung, because at least the margins for Samsung on products they only make components from are smaller, and I'm not actively advertising my support for them by displaying a logo."
It's the same as when years ago I vowed never to spend my own money on a Microsoft product again due to personal harm the company's shady business practices did to me. I was still willing to take money from people who wanted me to fix their Microsoft products, and if logic dictated it I wasn't going to tell a client not to buy a Microsoft product if that was what they really wanted or was truly the best tool for their job. But I, personally, wasn't going to have their logo on things I was working with.
Sun will shine brighter, and birds will sing louder, and honey will taste just a tad sweeter...
----------
good point... there is a little bit of Samsung in every Apple...
Agreed. But to be clear, I wasn't accusing anyone of hypocrisy. Although I see your point that others might, even if only in a pedantic sort of way. Which perhaps was what I was doing...crap.
Microsoft has been doing worse things (see the criticism against Microsoft Wikipedia page), but they're still alive. Mainly anti-competitive things like intentionally not adhering to web standards. Silverlight is their latest plot.
----------
Not sure thoughts about this by everyone, but Samsung makes some amazing TVs
No, I'm never buying a Samsung TV. Not because of Samsung's sleaziness but because I have one now, and it's a pain in the butt. I don't know how they managed to make a TV that lags, but they did, and it even has invisible touch buttons that only work 1/3 of the time.
----------
Then it would set the precedent to shut down a lot of other foreign producers... might get messy. I still don't think they deserve to sell half their stuff here.
I own one also. I didn't think the invisible buttons would bother me because that's what remotes are for. IT BOTHERS ME. Especially when my Logitech Harmony doesn't want to turn on the TV and I have to hunt for the invisible button. Don't me started on the Samsung TV remote.
The other division of Samsung are corrupt as well - especially, the Engineering & Construction. We just hear about electronics because this is a tech board and it impacts a high profile american company.
.
Don't feel it hard to believe at all. Samsung is big enough that their executives are immune to any criminal punishment, as long as they are getting the most possible benefits for the company, legal or illegal, moral or immoral, unless the other party is powerful enough to force the whole South Korean government to bow.
They know this fact, so they are willing to commit any business crime at any time.
They're all making progress. What progress are the lawyers making? The engineers and retain and management and assembly line workers are all improving the quality of life for those that can afford the products that are produced... or at least you can argue that they're doing so. Who's lives are improved because of the existence of these lawyers (besides their families that they support?)
Sell your iPhone then, pretty much the entire thing is made by Samsung, just assembled by Foxconn, which is a great company, you know?
You're right. It isn't Samsung because it isn't branded as such, despite the fact they make over $100 per phone sold before licensing issues...
The one issue I have with these deals is, essentially, was Apple giving anti-competitive deals to Nokia? And I wasn't aware that you aren't allowed to possess confidential materials-I would assume the third party is in serious trouble here, but I fail to understand why Samsung would be. Even if they reported that they knew the information, how do you suddenly un-know it?
Industrial Espionage is nothing new. But I'm not quite sure what Samsung itself did wrong, and Samsung has contended that Apple refuses to give reasonable licenses for what it deems obvious software patents used in many different applications historically, though only in a smartphone recently...I'll give an example of Costco, which infamously received an invoice meant to go to Walmart one day, realizes Walmart got a better deal than them, and used this information to stop carrying them as a supplier. And should a journalist who leaks details of, say, government plans go to jail? So why didn't Woodward and Bernstein go to jail?
Last edited:
The families of the mentioned engineers and workers and retail staff and executive team of Apple
This is very different. Samsung's lawyers were given the information about Nokia by the judge, to assist them with their case. Apple understandably did not want the information to be shared, and the judge therefore made it clear that it was for the lawyers only: it was shared with the explicit condition that this information could not be shared with Samsung itself, only their lawyers. Not only did the lawyers flout this, but Samsung then, rather than going back to the judge immediately and saying "oops, our lawyers screwed up here" instead used the information, and also subsequently in a meeting with Nokia taunted them with the fact that they had information they knew they shouldn't have. Not very clever behaviour when you're still in the middle of the law suit.
So you better not use any apple products because they do contain parts made by Samsung..
