|
Post by lovemyipad on Aug 9, 2013 15:17:43 GMT -8
The bar is open...
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Aug 9, 2013 15:19:30 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on Aug 9, 2013 15:35:49 GMT -8
Mav, you continue to amaze and impress me! GOLD STAR!
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Aug 9, 2013 16:36:05 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Aug 9, 2013 16:38:36 GMT -8
They just never learn, do they...
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Aug 9, 2013 16:44:06 GMT -8
I'm starting to wonder if these are...paid celebrity Samsung parody tweets? Never gets old.
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Aug 9, 2013 17:46:15 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by archibaldtuttle on Aug 9, 2013 18:18:27 GMT -8
Haven't had three up weeks in a row since May, and that was just barely. Before that, it was September. Oh, how I would like three solid up weeks in a row...
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Aug 9, 2013 18:53:52 GMT -8
Really shows the magnitude of internet activity. Thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
Post by redinaustin on Aug 10, 2013 3:10:18 GMT -8
anildash: A brief history of how Apple's iWatch came to market: t.co/0OTqkQSiUp
|
|
|
Post by rob_london on Aug 10, 2013 4:48:14 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Aug 10, 2013 6:15:03 GMT -8
LET ME QUOTE: "Apple spent five years and $5 billion designing a product. It was a revolutionary product. It's hard for most of us to remember what a phone looked like in 2007, but it was revolutionary. Samsung looked at it initially and said "this is easily copied, but we don't need to because it's going to be unsuccessful." Two years later they had a summit and decided to copy it. And they spent three months -- three months -- copied it and brought it to market. And the result was ... you see what happened to the market share." That is the reason I use a Gillette Fusion battery powered razor blade that costs maybe $4.00 each, instead of some cheaper dollar/blade product that looks very similar to the Gillette product. The "copy" blade is maybe produced in Germany and assembled in ? As far as I know, the Fusion blade is made in the USA. That is important for me. The Fusion blade is the original. That is important for me.
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Aug 10, 2013 6:25:01 GMT -8
LET ME QUOTE: "Apple spent five years and $5 billion designing a product. It was a revolutionary product. It's hard for most of us to remember what a phone looked like in 2007, but it was revolutionary. Samsung looked at it initially and said "this is easily copied, but we don't need to because it's going to be unsuccessful." Two years later they had a summit and decided to copy it. And they spent three months -- three months -- copied it and brought it to market. And the result was ... you see what happened to the market share." That is the reason I use a Gillette Fusion battery powered razor blade that costs maybe $4.00 each, instead of some cheaper dollar/blade product that looks very similar to the Gillette product. The "copy" blade is maybe produced in Germany and assembled in ? As far as I know, the Fusion blade is made in the USA. That is important for me. The Fusion blade is the original. That is important for me. Ahh, this begs the question if you own stock in Gillette?
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Aug 10, 2013 6:31:25 GMT -8
Ahh, this begs the question if you own stock in Gillette? Gillette is now a division of P&G. I am just a customer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2013 6:54:52 GMT -8
Big victory yesterday for Apple. I didn't think Apple would prevail on the e-Books case -- Apple will appeal that in due course.
But for Samsung's misbehavior, wow. I like this quote from PED and Apple 2.0:
It's hard not to concur with FOSS Patent's Florian Mueller, who writes: "I'm as convinced as I could be ... that Apple will be granted a permanent injunction against Samsung over some if not all of the six patents and the trade dress a California jury found infringed almost a year ago."
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Aug 10, 2013 7:43:04 GMT -8
Big victory yesterday for Apple. I didn't think Apple would prevail on the e-Books case -- Apple will appeal that in due course. But for Samsung's misbehavior, wow. I like this quote from PED and Apple 2.0: It's hard not to concur with FOSS Patent's Florian Mueller, who writes: "I'm as convinced as I could be ... that Apple will be granted a permanent injunction against Samsung over some if not all of the six patents and the trade dress a California jury found infringed almost a year ago."The wheels of justice turn slowly but having turned can grind exceedingly fine... Let's hope....
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Aug 10, 2013 9:00:41 GMT -8
I don't see it helping AAPL much near-term without something like an analyst upgrade or an actual import ban on new or newish Samsung smartphones/tablets. The press won't give AAPL an assist, that's for sure.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Aug 10, 2013 9:26:26 GMT -8
Highly recommended read from Mueller. www.fosspatents.com/2013/08/at-appellate-hearing-apple-makes.html?m=1I can't see how anyone reasonable doesn't get _mildly_ skeptical by an argument that "hey we can easily work around the IP infringement, so don't bother blocking our sales, we can fix it anytime." Gimme a break. Defending a blatant choice to take the path of least resistance and copy another company's stuff to quick profits (or in Android zealots' case, that "open" HugePhone with the iPhone-patented features they've always wanted) is reprehensible. And yet...
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on Aug 10, 2013 10:10:13 GMT -8
What's so special about these days? (Okay, some of these I know, but others...?) Why do you think volume spiked over 20M on these days?
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Aug 10, 2013 10:27:03 GMT -8
Dear God, StockTwits makes Twitter look smart sometimes...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2013 10:29:08 GMT -8
Highly recommended read from Mueller. www.fosspatents.com/2013/08/at-appellate-hearing-apple-makes.html?m=1I can't see how anyone reasonable doesn't get _mildly_ skeptical by an argument that "hey we can easily work around the IP infringement, so don't bother blocking our sales, we can fix it anytime." Gimme a break. Defending a blatant choice to take the path of least resistance and copy another company's stuff to quick profits (or in Android zealots' case, that "open" HugePhone with the iPhone-patented features they've always wanted) is reprehensible. And yet... Been doing a lot of reading on fingerprint sensors, and the one really important thing I've learned is that there are two classes of consumer grade readers. The first, which is the kind that Motorola tried unsuccessfully to use a few years back, is subject to limited accuracy, caused by environmental issues, and has a very short effective life before total failure (~6 months). The second is derived by a combination of patented Apple manufacturing techniques and patented Authentec fingerprint reader technology. This class is highly resistant to the environmental problems that plague the first class, and is highly accurate. The effectiveness of the second class is due to two elements, a manufacturing process developed and patented by Apple, and reader technologies developed and patented by Authentec. There is nothing remotely resembling prior art for either component to the second class.Copying, or trying to copy, either of the two components to the second class will be insufficient, as both components are required to get the same/similar results. The second class is a major change from the way the first class functions. A work around will be an extremely difficult, if not impossible, method to neutralize Apple's patents. Coupled with iOS7 enhancements such as security, I see the fingerprint reader as a major differentiator that will not be duplicated in the next 3 - 4 years. I do see the competition rushing to market with the first class of fingerprint readers, but their inherent accuracy limitations and short effective use life spans will only illuminate how much better the Apple owned second class reader is. Just ask Motorola.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Aug 10, 2013 10:29:58 GMT -8
What's so special about these days? (Okay, some of these I know, but others...?) Why do you think volume spiked over 20M on these days? There was earnings two of those days, and crazy capitulation-type moves on another two (4/17 and 4/19). Btw, I think your volume charts are one day ahead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2013 10:58:36 GMT -8
At times I get frustrated by my perception of the quality of posts here on the AFB. So much so that I reinstated my membership at Braeburn about a week ago.
Today I told Robert that reinstatement was a mistake, and requested that membership be cancelled.
There is limited intelligent discussion over there, and far more attacks on messengers, although Robert made an observation regarding Mavericks' revenue, that I incorporated into my estimates for the December quarter.
|
|
|
Post by nagrani on Aug 10, 2013 11:24:03 GMT -8
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Aug 10, 2013 11:37:24 GMT -8
From the article:
When did this happen, exactly?
At AT&T? Nope. At Verizon? Not since iPhone, nope. At Sprint and T-mobile, maybe? Hmm...
Typical.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2013 13:08:11 GMT -8
If anybody has access to this article, please advise. It is behind a password wall. My login/password gets me onto the Journal but not to this article.
|
|
Ted
fire starter
Posts: 882
|
Post by Ted on Aug 10, 2013 13:15:01 GMT -8
Here you go, Gregg - the article in its entirety:
By MIN-JEONG LEE And YUN-HEE KIM CONNECT SEOUL—The International Trade Commission's ruling to ban the import of some Samsung Electronics Co. 005930.SE +1.07% products into the U.S. will sap growth momentum for the South Korean behemoth just as it has overtaken Apple Inc. AAPL -1.42% as the U.S.'s biggest smartphone maker.
Samsung said that its products will continue to be available in the U.S. despite the ruling, indicating it has already made some changes to models to avoid infringing on patents. But the ruling could lead to Samsung losing market share in the near term, according to analysts, even though the impact on its earnings won't be significant because the company will make modifications to existing models or launch newer versions of its mobile phones so it can continue to sell its devices in the U.S. Although Samsung doesn't disclose sales from the U.S., the Americas region is the largest market for the South Korean company, followed by Europe and Asia.
The big question now is whether Samsung's newer smartphones could be affected by future rulings. Apple has filed another complaint with the courts in the U.S. that seeks to ban newer versions of Samsung's Galaxy smartphones. That case isn't set to go to trial until 2014. Specific Samsung products affected by the ITC order weren't spelled out in the order Friday, though an earlier ruling by an agency judge pointed to older products that include the Galaxy S II smartphone and Galaxy Tab 10.1. The ITC found that Samsung infringed on parts of one Apple patent that covers elements of swiping a finger across the display of a device, a key feature of nearly all smartphones and tablets. It also cited parts of another patent related to headphone jacks.
President Barack Obama's administration will now have 60 days to decide whether to let the Samsung ban take effect. The only way the ITC ban can be overturned is if the administration vetoes it.
"Apple may catch up with Samsung in terms of market share in the U.S. this quarter or even surpass Samsung," Doh Hyun-woo, an analyst with Mirae Asset Securities in Seoul said.
In the second quarter, Samsung overtook Apple in the U.S. with its smartphone market share rising to 34.9% from 22.6% a year earlier, data from researcher Strategy Analytics showed. Meanwhile, Apple's smartphone market share fell to 32.3% from 33.2%. Globally, Samsung is the world's biggest smartphone maker with a market share of 30.4%, ahead of Apple's 13.1% based on IDC data.
But the ruling comes at a time when investors have been losing faith in Samsung. The company's market value has fallen by more than $30 billion since late April on concerns that its Galaxy S4 smartphones aren't selling well and growth at its core mobile unit is slowing.
Samsung has been spending heavily on marketing and brand-building, especially in the U.S. In March, it launched a lavish event to showcase its latest flagship smartphone, the Galaxy S4, at Radio City Music Hall in New York before launching the device at home or in Europe. It has also been spending heavily on clever ads poking fun at Apple in the U.S. since hiring a former Nike Inc. executive to run marketing.
Samsung representatives didn't have further comment on the latest ruling.
"It remains to be seen whether Samsung can comply with today's limited exclusion order in the ways that don't make its Android-based smartphone and tablet less attractive," wrote Florian Mueller, an intellectual property analyst at Florian Mueller Consulting, in a blog post. "The commercial significance of the exclusion order depends on the viabilities of the workaround."
The ruling could put pressure on the Obama administration, which only a few days earlier took the unusual step of vetoing an ITC ruling in favor of Samsung. The ITC ruling would have barred the sale of some older Apple iPhones and iPads.
Last week's veto by the Obama administration of an ITC order to ban some Apple products was the first in more than 25 years. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman made the decision based on policy concerns about companies obtaining product bans based on patents that cover technology used in industrywide standards.
Lawyers said Samsung could argue through the courts and lobby for a veto that banning Galaxy products would limit consumer choice in the market. But they note that obtaining a veto won't be easy. Apple was able to receive a veto by the Obama administration because the patents that Samsung hold are "standard essential patents"—those that must be licensed under fair and reasonable terms to other companies.
"The patents that are being asserted by Apple against Samsung are in a different category and therefore not apparent that there will be the same opportunity for Samsung," said Mark Summerfield, a patent attorney at Watermark in Melbourne.
While Apple is arguing that Samsung copied the design and the feel of the iPhone and the iPad, Samsung alleges that Apple violated Samsung's wireless-technology patents. Such standard patents may be more difficult for Samsung to argue its case, said Ronald Yu, who teaches patent law at Hong Kong University.
"It is going to be harder to get a ban if your patent is a standard essential patent," said Matthew Woods, a partner at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi.
"Litigants such as Samsung would have to now start to look and say, can we build more of our strategy around non standard essential patents," that would not be subject to the debate of fair and reasonable licensing issues, Mr. Woods said.
While Samsung reported a record second-quarter net profit in July, its operating margin from its mobile unit shrank from the first quarter pressured by high expenditures on marketing and distribution. Samsung's operating profit for its mobile business was 6.28 trillion won ($5.6 billion) in the second quarter, a 52% increase from a year earlier. But the pace of growth slowed from 56% in the first quarter.
Mr. Yu said meanwhile Apple and Samsung will continue to fight it out in courts to try to design around each others' intellectual-property rights.
"Hopefully at some point, rational heads will prevail and they will sit down and discuss some mutually acceptable licensing scheme."
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Aug 10, 2013 13:36:30 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2013 13:36:38 GMT -8
Here you go, Gregg - the article in its entirety: By MIN-JEONG LEE And YUN-HEE KIM CONNECT SEOUL—The International Trade Commission's ruling to ban the import of some Samsung Electronics Co. 005930.SE +1.07% products into the U.S. will sap growth momentum for the South Korean behemoth just as it has overtaken Apple Inc. AAPL -1.42% as the U.S.'s biggest smartphone maker. Thanks Ted. Analysts of the ban still don't get it, although they are getting closer. Samsung's SEP IP covers interoperability. As such, by submitting them to the industry standards body they agreed anybody can use the under FRAND terms. For Apple to be in violation Apple must refuse to pay fees in any amount, including rates agreed to by others. On the other hand Samsung can be in violation of its own IP because of the FRAND agreement they accepted years ago, by attempting to collect fees higher than anyone else is paying. Apple's IP cover those elements that make Apple products unique. Apple is not under any obligation to license its IP to others. PERIOD. What Samsung wants are Apple's crown jewels, and are violating its FRAND agreement trying to extort them from Apple. It disturbs me greatly that the US DOJ has the resources to file anti-trust suit against Apple over eBooks, but does nothing about a blatant anti-trust violation as is being practiced by Samsung. The world's justice systems are designed to be enforced according to the values of its leadership, and has little to do with justice. I sincerely hope that Apple is able to move its Samsung business elsewhere. Only when the loss of business is greater than the gains from stealing will Samsung's behavior change.
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Aug 10, 2013 13:43:47 GMT -8
At times I get frustrated by my perception of the quality of posts here on the AFB. So much so that I reinstated my membership at Braeburn about a week ago. Today I told Robert that reinstatement was a mistake, and requested that membership be cancelled. There is limited intelligent discussion over there, and far more attacks on messengers, although Robert made an observation regarding Mavericks' revenue, that I incorporated into my estimates for the December quarter. I like Braeburn, different emphasis than here and I like many of the posts. Like any board there are posts I disagree with but still read them. I do appreciate your posts, which provides unique perspectives. Much like many of the people here and @ Braeburn. And, yes it is still hot here in Texas as sweat streams down my back.
|
|