[pcchen]

Originally Posted by ninelven

I know; it is just too damn difficult and complicated to give money to people. I mean engineering and coding are hard but nothing really compares...

That's really not in Apple's control though. It's impossible for Apple to build their own assembly plants while maintaining similar margin. Maybe in the future, but right now their sales do not warranty that decision yet (Foxconn, for example, manufacture a lot more than just for Apple). They do have second source, such as Pegatron, so in a sense they do have some leverage over those contractors' conduct, but probably not very much.

Also, even if you managed to "clean up" assembly plants, there are still countless other factories that have similar problems. Focusing on only one point is, IMHO, just a crusade.

And ironically money is the least of the problems. Foxconn, to my understanding, already pays much more than average in China, and that's why Foxconn is moving into inner provinces and even to Brazil (also they have a plan to manufacture robots in order to reduce their workforce). So it's really not a problem of money, but a problem of safety practices (compared to western nations). No one is forcing them to work for Foxconn. So if you have an axe to grind, go after the Chinese government. That'd be much more effective.

[Malo]

They could give more margin to their resellers perhaps? Ever since the very early days, margins with Apple barely matched overhead. The reseller I worked for (on the PC side) only really made money from Apple on the repair side where the markup on replacement parts was insanely high.

[ninelven]

Originally Posted by pcchen

So if you have an axe to grind, go after the Chinese government. That'd be much more effective.

What axe? I just wish we lived in a world with more people like George Westinghouse is all. As for targeting the Chinese government... good luck with that.

Originally Posted by pcchen

Focusing on only one point is, IMHO, just a crusade.

I know; one offhand comment seven words long, and suddenly I'm on a crusade. You clearly have more invested in this topic than I do, so I will leave you to it.

[pcchen]

Originally Posted by ninelven

What axe? I just wish we lived in a world with more people like George Westinghouse is all. As for targeting the Chinese government... good luck with that.

I know; one offhand comment seven words long, and suddenly I'm on a crusade. You clearly have more invested in this topic than I do, so I will leave you to it.

Did I say "you" are on a crusade? (unless you admit that you just focus on one point) I simply tried to point out what I think is wrong (basically focusing on Apple while ignoring the fact that Apple alone can't do much).

[pcchen]

Originally Posted by Malo

They could give more margin to their resellers perhaps? Ever since the very early days, margins with Apple barely matched overhead. The reseller I worked for (on the PC side) only really made money from Apple on the repair side where the markup on replacement parts was insanely high.

I don't know enough about retailers to say anything deeper than that, but IIRC PC retailers' margin are generally very low. I'm pretty sure here in Taiwan selling Apple stuff are more profitable than selling general PC stuff, though probably not by much.

[ninelven]

Nothing like getting semantically trolled by a moderator. /sad

[Silent_Buddha]

Originally Posted by pcchen

I don't know enough about retailers to say anything deeper than that, but IIRC PC retailers' margin are generally very low. I'm pretty sure here in Taiwan selling Apple stuff are more profitable than selling general PC stuff, though probably not by much.

That's generally true with most retailers. If they can manage to maintain 10-15% margins on non-consumables they are pretty happy.

It's those consumables where they attempt to make up for the low margins of non-consumables. Toner cartridges, ink cartridges, printer paper, etc. It's why they love practically giving away inkjet printers. Or in Apple retailer's case the ridiculously high cost of replacement parts and/or service.

Regards,
SB

[Arnold Beckenbauer]

Motorola wins German injunction against Apple's iCloud (and MobileMe) push email service and client devices
Apple removed products from German online store due to Motorola injunction based on FRAND patent

[RudeCurve]

When you can't compete with products file patent infringement lawsuits.

[CarstenS]

And sometimes the other guy decides to hit back and you get your face slammed yourself. Pity.
Or did you not talk about Apple in the first place?

[itsmydamnation]

Motorola already starting to pay for itself?

that was always going to be apples problem if they got sue happy, there are still the new guy relative to Motorola/Nokia/seamens/Samsung/etc

[idsn6]

What, we're posting cherry-picked blogposts with marginal thread relevancy and no explanation or updates now? Okay.

Appeals court grants Apple temporary suspension of enforcement of Motorola injunction
Motorola wants 2.25% of Apple's sales in return for license to standard-essential wireless patents

[Sxotty]

Well at least lawyer is still a growth industry.

[AlphaWolf]

Originally Posted by idsn6

What, we're posting cherry-picked blogposts with marginal thread relevancy and no explanation or updates now? Okay.

Appeals court grants Apple temporary suspension of enforcement of Motorola injunction
Motorola wants 2.25% of Apple's sales in return for license to standard-essential wireless patents

Perhaps you could have actually read the linked article.

[Sxotty]

More court wins for apple. Though Samsung owned them in the zinger category

Originally Posted by Samsung

[it is] unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners

[Mize]

Huge win for Apple, but huge hit to tech progress...basically a big hit to Android by proxy.

[Kaotik]

Hopefully there's more sense at higher court levels than what this farce at the district court, fact is that if Apple was the one from South-Korea and Samsung the US one, the verdict would have been completely different.

[eastmen]

Originally Posted by Kaotik

Hopefully there's more sense at higher court levels than what this farce at the district court, fact is that if Apple was the one from South-Korea and Samsung the US one, the verdict would have been completely different.

Don't think that really matters. Apple is the Press darling. If it was MS or another company that people don't like instead of apple they would have lost. Plain and simple

[silent_guy]

Originally Posted by eastmen

Don't think that really matters. Apple is the Press darling. If it was MS or another company that people don't like instead of apple they would have lost. Plain and simple

The question in front of the jury was not whether or not they think the US patent system is sensible. It was whether or not Samsung violated the patents and trade dress of Apple with the current set of rules.

I don't think there's any question that Samsung blatantly copied pretty much anything they could possibly think of. Once you agree on that, it's a small step to also agree they infringed patents and trade dress. So their decision makes total sense, Apple or not. This was a jury with quite a bit of engineering and legal knowledge, not a bunch of hobos.

Those who, other than Samsung lawyers, who bring up the rounded corners or the phone icon are spectacularly missing the point. Somehow they always forget to mention that even the icon for the photo collection, a flower, was copied. For me, this has always been exhibit nr. 1 if you wanted to prove blatant copying: you can simply NOT make the case that a flower is the only way to represent photos.

Trade dress is not just one particular small detail. It's the totality of the whole product. Personally, I never thought much about other Android phones. Take HTC phone: up to the OneX, they were all butt ugly, and after that very nice actually, but never once was my reaction one of directly copying an iPhone. With the Samsung Galaxy S on the other hand, it was comically obvious, a bad copy, sure, but a copy nonetheless. It's no surprise Google explicitly warned Samsung about this.

Note that they did NOT found Samsung infringing wrt to copying the iPad and a bunch of other phones, despite the rounded corners. That by itself was clearly not sufficient for them.

So the jury did their job within the rules they were given. Just as much as an opponent of, say, the death penalty, when member of a jury, is expected to put his personal opinions aside when judging a murderer.

The real question then is if the current legal framework makes sense. That's a whole different discussion.

If you think that it's acceptable to make pure copies of somebody else's product, e.g. the flower icon, then the law needs to change. Blaming the jury for being Apple fanboys won't help you with that.

[Kaotik]

Everyone copies, including Apple, but only Apple tries to patent things that should never be given patents in the first place and then sue everyone.

Are you seriously suggesting that having one bigger button makes some Samsung phones "blatantly obvious copies? You specificly mention Galaxy S, too - it has one big button, yes, it also has 2 (or was it 3?) other buttons on the front, and the back of the phone isn't even straight, it has notable bumb at the bottom.

Also, regardless what the jury was or wasn't supposed take into account sensibility of US patent system, how can you in any remote way defend for example pinch-to-zoom being taken into account on any front - a feature done by others a long, long time before Apple?
I'm quite sure the "rubberband effect" was also done by others before.

edit:
This is a good read: If Android is a "stolen product," then so was the iPhone

[silent_guy]

Everybody copies. Everybody patents individual things.

But you're cherry picking again, which is what I would do too if I were in the untenable position of having to defend Samsung.

This jury did not condemn Samsung for a little detail here and there. They condemned a shameless copying operation. (A very profitable one at that.) I am not sure at all that the same jury would condemn HTC.

You have to look at the totality of the case, not some detail here and there. Same thing goes for the Apple patents: the beauty of the original iPhone is that suddenly it did make things look obvious that weren't obvious before. Can you honestly say you were not blown away by the original 2007 iPhone introduction keynote? Pinch to zoom, screen bounce, double tap, on-screen keyboard, whole new ways of UI interactions, etc. in one incredibly well thought out coherent whole. (Android still has trouble creating that same coherent feeling.) There was nothing evolutionary about it, they got the whole basics down on their first try. Bickering about pinch to zoom being obvious is not seeing the big picture. But in the patent system, you have to break down your invention and break it down into very small pieces.

So: what's your opinion about that flower icon?

[silent_guy]

The Ars article is interesting but not relevant at this point: Androjd was not the key issue on trial here. Samsung copying Apple's design was. That may be a too subtle point for some but I think it was very important one to this jury, otherwise they would found all Samsung device as infringing.

[Mize]

Originally Posted by Kaotik

Everyone copies, including Apple, but only Apple tries to patent things that should never be given patents in the first place and then sue everyone.

Seriously? You actually believe this? Apple is the world's and history's only patent troll evah!

LMAO

Oh yeah and Microsoft never sued anyone out funneled funds into proxies (SCO) to do the same.

[Kaotik]

Originally Posted by Mize

Seriously? You actually believe this? Apple is the world's and history's only patent troll evah!

LMAO

Oh yeah and Microsoft never sued anyone out funneled funds into proxies (SCO) to do the same.

No, not the only patent troll, but in the phone business it's the only one suing everyone with completely senseless patents which should have never been granted (ie something as basic as "rounded rectangles", "flat front surfaces", things other did before (pinch-to-zoom, rubberband effect) etc).

[3dcgi]

I have the original Samsung Galaxy S Fascinate and when I bought it I didn't think about it looking like an iPhone, but others commented about it when they saw my phone. It's obvious Samsung copied Apple with their custom apps interface though.

The thing that blew me away when the iPhone came out wasn't the UI interactions. It was the capacitive touch screen. I'd never seen that before and it opened up possibilities that didn't previously exist. I had a touch screen phone at the time and it was resistive and needed a stylus to work well.