Your favorite Apple, iPhone, iPad, iOS, Jailbreak, and Cydia site.
iPad Newsforums, a part of the
The Wall Street Journal reported today Samsung is attempting to reach a secret deal with Apple that would allow the company to sell their Galaxy 10.1 tablet in Australia. Samsung's...
09-30-2011, 12:50 PM #1
WSJ Reports Samsung Offering Apple Secret Deal in Australian Patent Case
The Wall Street Journal reported today Samsung is attempting to reach a secret deal with Apple that would allow the company to sell their Galaxy 10.1 tablet in Australia.
Samsung's Attorney David Catterns told Down Jones Newswires, after a Federal court hearing in Sydney today, that if Apple accepts the deal the Galaxy Tab could be on store shelves in Australia by next week. The deal will most likely see some concessions on Samsung’s part. Hopefully—for their sake—it isn’t anything like the deal Samsung, HTC, and other Android manufacturers struck with Microsoft garnering the Redmond Giant an estimated $444 million a year in revenue. Reportedly that equates to between $3 and $6 per android device sold.
If the deal includes some sort of fee paid to Apple—which again cuts into Samsung’s bottom line—it could set a nasty precedent for their other legal battles across the globe. With Amazon releasing a sub $200 tablet, and Apple dominating the market, Samsung can’t afford to keep their devices priced so high, and forking over more money per unit sold to another company means they can’t afford to lower prices much either. Most of all though, they can't afford to not sell their devices at all and a successful Apple injunction would do just that.
Samsung and Apple have pulled their best Carmen Sandiego legal impersonation over the last year, and while the details of the deal are “secret” any resolution would be welcome by both sides, especially Samsung. Maybe I should have gone into patent law.
Source: The Wall Street Journal
Last edited by Phillip Swanson; 09-30-2011 at 12:53 PM.
09-30-2011, 12:55 PM #2
I hope they come to a satisfactory solution for everyone.He who asks a question looks foolish for 5 minutes. He who doesn't ask a question remains foolish forever.
09-30-2011, 12:55 PM #3
I'm sorry, but if someone was dumb enough to pick up a box that says Samsung Galaxy Tab right on it and think its an iPad, they are several levels beyond stupid.
09-30-2011, 03:15 PM #4
09-30-2011, 03:18 PM #5
09-30-2011, 03:39 PM #6
Removed for being inappropriate. This is your sixth and final warning -
09-30-2011, 03:44 PM #7
You seem to have a very simplistic view of life...He who asks a question looks foolish for 5 minutes. He who doesn't ask a question remains foolish forever.
09-30-2011, 03:53 PM #8
Come on man, you of all people should know how greedy apple can be in terms of ownership. Simplistic? Sure.. but i prefer idealistic, if you will.
09-30-2011, 04:10 PM #9
idealistic?I guess you are young. We all are until life catches up with ys.
Enjoy it while you canHe who asks a question looks foolish for 5 minutes. He who doesn't ask a question remains foolish forever.
09-30-2011, 04:28 PM #10
09-30-2011, 04:40 PM #11
09-30-2011, 06:02 PM #12
Screw Apple, yes I have the iPad 2 but as soon as the Galaxy 10.1 3G/4G comes out for T-Mobile it's time to say good bye to the iPad for good.
09-30-2011, 06:37 PM #13
Yes they did get injunctions in several countries but seems to me like the folks who brought forth those injunctions are the stupid of which I spoke.
09-30-2011, 07:28 PM #14
It's the concept of protecting intellectual property from which the company makes a profit. If you came up with a product that you had a patent on and were making millions of dollars and someone down the street came out with something virtually identical to do the same thing and as a result you lost millions or dollars worth of sales I bet my life you'd go after them just like Apple is to protect their profits.. ie shareholders investments.
10-01-2011, 01:14 AM #15
**** apple seriously... I'm sure they think they run the world, with their patent and lawsuit a day life style... Just because the box is white and the company puts a picture of there product on the front their copying apple? wtf, since when did apple invent this? So a brand can't put their mark and product on the box?, and most company's like to put the project in question at the top of the box so its the first thing the consumer sees... **** off apple..... just F off...
10-01-2011, 04:21 AM #16
Maybe iPad it's better but the galaxy tab has Flash so I will get the galaxy or Acer cause it has a USB connection
10-01-2011, 08:47 AM #17
FWIW I purchased one of the HP Touchpads when they went on "fire sale". They are packaged the same way, and look remarkably like an iPad. I am just throwing this out there, but is it possible that tablets look like the iPad because the iPad, too, is a tablet? I agree that something can easily be done about packaging, but there are so many products that use "Apple-esque" packaging. Further, is the packaging even patented, copyrighted, etc? If not, it should be completely irrelevant (and legally it very well may be).
The thing I do not understand is how similar one product can be to another before it is considered a "copy". These two devices (including their packaging) look different enough that any reasonably sensible person would notice a difference. There are plenty of products out there where one make looks identical to another make (let's talk tvs, monitors, hell you can throw in any technology here). Why is the galaxy tab the product to go after?
Last edited by sziklassy; 10-01-2011 at 09:44 AM.
10-03-2011, 11:22 AM #18
existed long before the iPad, as well as the Newton. This is more of a question of competition. Products that look similar to one another are all over the place. Kleenex may be a very known brand of tissue, but every other tissue and it's container are virtual identical aside from names and logos. The same goes for many kinds of products. Suing a competitor strictly on grounds of product similarity is just plain silly.
Has not the idea of compitition always been about building the better proverbial mouse trap, not suing the one who does? I could understand if Samsung had used actual iPad parts or actually stole part of their OS, but I always recall it being totally fair game if one came up with a product on their own, like how Atari lost in suing Coleco for making an Atari 2600 module for their console because they used off the shelf parts instead of using Atari's proprietary ones. As far as I've read, Samsung has not used any proprietary hardware or software owned by Apple, so I fail to really see what grounds Apple truly has in these law suits.
Last edited by szr; 10-04-2011 at 06:25 PM.