Comments on: RFM 2013 Top 5 – Part 4 – Apple vs. Samsung – Begrudged peace.

By: Tim Nash

Tim Nash — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 17:49:49 +0000

Samsung’s internal component costs will increase because of reduced throughput caused by Apple buying its components elsewhere. Apple will also no longer be helping with capital expenditure on new plant and machinery.

By: Tim Nash

Tim Nash — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 17:37:30 +0000

As I wrote above ‘Apple has no reason to believe that Samsung wouldn’t effectively ignore an anti-clone clause’. So Apple would be exchanging patent litigation for breach-of-contract litigation, that could only start in a few years. Of course all delays in judgement benefit Samsung, which is why its current strategy has been so effective.

By: tatilsever

tatilsever — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 17:13:08 +0000

Samsung may have copied willy nilly in the past, but the current designs, at least the high end ones, do not look like clear copycats. After all said and done, I suspect the best Apple can hope for is somewhere around $10 to $20 per handset royalty and a no-cloning agreement. It is far tougher to ignore anti-cloning and patent sharing agreements, as both parties would be agreeing to who owns which design rights and there would most likely be arbitration clauses. I’d say settlement is fairly likely with US court judgement giving Apple some vindication and HTC settlement showing its flexibility.

By: tatilsever

tatilsever — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 17:01:19 +0000

Why should the component costs increase for the handset division? The division heads must have heard the news that the largest customer for the “internal” suppliers is exiting, so they could be drive really good bargains for LCD screens and mobile CPUs. Desperate sellers usually mean lower prices.

By: Tim Nash

Tim Nash — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:28:47 +0000

For me, the real question in this case is whether there is an en banc hearing with all 12 appeal court justices for the circuit, which overturns the ruling denying an injunction when a multi-function device has been found to infringe several patents. We should know about this hearing by the end of the month.

In any case Apple has little incentive to make an agreement with Samsung. Receiving a 1-2% royalty is mere noise in Apple’s profits – easily outweighed by selling a few million more iPhones.

By: windsorr

windsorr — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 14:52:54 +0000

this is waht I thought post August but now I am not so sure. Apple’s failure to get remedies on the big sellers and the fact that it wont see a dime of dmagaes from Samsung until after the appeal where Samsung could easily overturn what I see to be a very unsafe verdict. If the veridct is overtunred then the legal bill will come back to Apple. In the meantime the companies are paying theor own bills. If you listed to the commentary from the main judge in this case, she is utterly fed up with both protagnonists and wants them to settle. In that instance she is very unlikley to make a costs order in favour of Apple.

By: Tim Nash

Tim Nash — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 10:34:49 +0000

Without leverage over Apple, Samsung’s chances of reaching a settlement are close to zero. To work, agreements need parties to enter them in good faith. As became clear in the California trial, Samsung copied a lot and Apple has no reason to believe that Samsung wouldn’t effectively ignore an anti-clone clause similar to those in the agreements with Microsoft and HTC. From Apple’s point of view, while it receives damage awards in the 100s of millions, Samsung is funding Apple’s lawyers.

Apple will continue to move its components business from Samsung, so it no longer funds a significant part of Samsung’s R&D and production ramp up. So look at Samsung’s internal component costs to increase too and put pressure on margins.