Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Apple Seeks Ban on Sales of Eight Samsung Phones in U.S.



By Joel Rosenblatt, Adam Satariano and Jun Yang on August 28, 2012
 

    Companies Mentioned

    • AAPL
      APPLE INC
      • $674.8 USD
      • -0.88
      • -0.13%
    • GOOG
      GOOGLE INC
      • $677.25 USD
      • 8.03
      • 1.19%
    Apple Inc. (AAPL) is seeking a U.S. sales ban on eight models of Samsung Electronics Co. (005930)smartphones and the extension of a preliminary ban on a tablet computer after winning a patent trial against the South Korean company.
    Apple, which won more than $1 billion Aug. 24 after a jury found Samsung infringed six of seven patents at stake in the trial, named the phones it wants barred in a filing yesterday with U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California. The list includes several devices in the bestselling Galaxy lineup.
    The effect on Samsung’s sales will be negligible because Apple’s list only includes older devices that will account for less than 1.4 percent of the Korean company’s profits next year, said Mark Newman, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein who used to work at Samsung. The impact would be 6.3 percent if Apple manages to broaden a ban to newer devices and block 80 percent of all Samsung phones, he said.
    “The older models aren’t selling much now, and the penalty will only be a one-time cost,” Im Jeong Jae, a Seoul-based fund manager at Shinhan BNP Paribas Asset Management Co., which oversees about $29 billion, said by phone today. “There won’t be big damage to Samsung’s sales and operating profit.”

    ‘Necessary Measures’

    Samsung gained 1.3 percent to 1,195,000 won at the close of Seoul trading, while the benchmark Kospi index fell 0.1 percent. The stock dropped 7.5 percent yesterday. Apple shares slipped less than 1 percent to $674.80 at the close in New York.
    “We will take all necessary measures to ensure the availability of our products in the U.S. market,” Nam Ki Yung, a Seoul-based spokesman for Samsung, said in an e-mailed statement today.
    The U.S. verdict’s potential impact on Samsung’s research spending and its plans for new products is negative for the company, Moody’s Investors Service said in a statement today. It won’t immediately affect itscredit rating or outlook because the Suwon, South Korea-based company has “a strong diversified business position and substantial financial cushion to absorb the cash damages,” Moody’s said.
    Apple, based in Cupertino, California, won a ban on U.S. sales of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in June that the South Korean company said wouldn’t significantly affect its business. Apple, which seeks to make that ban permanent, said in a court filing yesterday that Koh should also bar U.S. sales of a version of the tablet that runs on mobile networks, even though the product wasn’t covered by the Aug. 24 verdict.

    Device Ban

    Samsung sought to have the ban on the Tab 10.1 lifted on Aug. 26 after the jury found the device didn’t infringe the Apple design patent on which the June 26 court-ordered sales ban was based. The jury instead found that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 infringed three of Apple’s software patents.
    Koh hasn’t ruled on any of the requests. She scheduled a Sept. 20 hearing for arguments on the potential bans, adding that the date may change.
    Of the 28 Samsung devices Apple says are infringing, the eight targeted for a U.S. sales ban include the Galaxy Prevail, which was the list’s top seller by units in the U.S. from mid-2010 to mid-2012, generating revenue of $378 million, according to data submitted by Samsung in a court filing.

    Apple’s List

    Apple’s list includes the Galaxy S II Epic 4G, ranked by Samsung as the third-best seller by units in the U.S. among the disputed products; the Galaxy S 4G, the fourth-best; and the Galaxy S II T-Mobile, the eighth-best during the past two years.
    The other devices include the Galaxy S Showcase, the S II AT&T, the S II Skyrocket and the Droid Charge. Some of the models began selling in the U.S. more than a year ago.
    Of the $1.05 billion in damages awarded against Samsung, the eight phones accounted for $461 million. Combined sales of the models totaled 9.1 million units from mid-2010 to mid-2012.
    The U.S. accounted for about 12 percent of Samsung’s smartphone sales in the second quarter, according to SK Securities Co. The company’s biggest market in the first half was western Europe at about 23 percent, followed by the Asia- Pacific region at 22 percent and China at 16 percent, according to HMC Investment Securities Co. in Seoul.
    The latest Galaxy S III phone wasn’t targeted by Apple in the trial and isn’t on the proposed ban list. That exclusion is “a positive for Samsung,” Newman said.
    Posted by at No comments:
    Labels:

    Tuesday, August 21, 2012

    Judge gives instructions to Apple-Samsung jury before closing arguments


    By , Tuesday, August 21, 1:40 PM

    After three weeks of arguments, the jury in the high-stakes patent dispute between Apple and Samsung has finally been given its instructions on what, exactly, jurors should be deciding in the high-stakes case.
    A ruling for Apple could ban imports of certain Samsung products and force the Korean company to change its designs or pay licensing fees to the Cupertino, Calif.-based firm. A ruling for Samsung, on the other hand, could damage Apple’s reputation as an innovator and lead to more iPhone look-alike designs.
    1
    Personal Post
    The case is set to go to the jury after a last-minute effort by executives to settle their differences failed to bear fruit. Apple is asking for $2.5 billion in damages for design infringement, while Samsung is asking for $422 million in technology patent infringement.
    But it’s not easy. The jury has been given109 pages that outline the 84 jury instructions in the case. San Jose Mercury News writer Howard Mintz reported that the jury was also given a crash course in patent and trademark law ahead of an expected four hours of closing arguments that could last until 8 p.m. Eastern time.
    Here’s a rundown of five instructions for the jury wading through all the information regarding Apple and Samsung:
    No upgrading: Jurors will be given devices as evidence in the case, but will have to decline prompts to update the software, PC World reported. According to the report, Judge Lucy Koh told the jury that they may “use them in your deliberations, and may connect to the Internet through the Web browser application, but must not alter or modify the devices in any way.” The report said jurors are also barred from inserting SIM cards into the devices, but may access the Internet through the court’s WiFi network.
    Jurors who see the update prompts have to elect to install the software “later” and exit the notification screen. The jury is supposed to evaluate the devices as they were at the time Apple and Samsung allege infringement occurred; updates could cloud that picture.
    Determine whether iPads were “distinctive”: Apple has said that Samsung’s tablets “diluted” its trade dress — in other words, that the tablets were so similar that they confused users looking for iPads. As Fortune’s Philip Elmer-DeWitt noted in his post on the complicated instructions, the jury will have to determine first whether Apple had established a distinctive brand with the iPhone and iPad, and then decide whether that happened before or after Samsung started selling its tablets. Finally, the jury has to decide if consumers could be confused about “the sources of Samsung’s goods,” more or less asking whether the look and feel of Samsung goods could lead someone to mistake them for Apple products.
    Decide whether Apple was an innovator: Apple’s been accusing Samsung of being a copycat, but Samsung is essentially asking the jury to consider that Apple also has a history of copying. Samsung has argued that Apple’s products weren’t really all that innovative, but simply the next step in the evolution of consumer electronics products. The Korean company has gone to great lengths to tap experts with information on previous touchscreen devices that could be considered ancestors of Apple’s tablets and smartphones.
    Weighing experts carefully: Both companies spent a lot of money calling expert witnesses to the stand to help make their case to the jury. Now jurors must decide whether they want to believe any of it. Judge Lucy Koh was clear to point out that they don’t have to if they don’t want to.
    As Mintz reported, Koh told the jurors that when it comes to the testimony of those highly paid experts, they can “accept it or reject it.”
    Were violations “willful”?: If jurors decide that there were patent infringements, they will also have to decide if they were willful.
    In this case, Samsung has dodged a bullet of sorts thanks to a last-minute change to the jury instructions decided this morning. Originally, a magistrate judge ruled that Samsung — but not Apple — had failed to preserve e-mails relating to the case, which could have tipped the scales in Apple’s favor. On Monday, Koh overruled that order and said that both companies were at fault for not preserving evidence.
    As a result, All Things Digital’s John Paczkowski wrote, both companies asked Koh to throw the instructions out Tuesday morning, as they more or less canceled each other out.
    Posted by at No comments:
    Labels:

    Tuesday, August 14, 2012

    Heigh Ho Cell Phone--The Ego Rides Again



    By  (about the author)

    Become a Fan Become a Fan  (2 fans)   -- Page 1 of 1 page(s)
    opednews.com

    It's all about me by cafepress.com
    All spiritual traditions embrace the principle of turning within to realize the authentic or higher self which is prior to conditioning of the small ego-self. That spiritual-self has different names in various traditions: God consciousness, Christ consciousness, Buddha consciousness, Krishna consciousness, and others. I prefer the term "omni consciousness" as a neutral expression of the universal pure consciousness. Omni consciousness doesn't carry the baggage of religious and spiritual traditions that can be off-putting for many.
    Call it whatever you may, the purpose of turning within remains the same: to pull back from ego involvements and attachments in the material world and reconnect with the spiritual-self. Religious and spiritual traditions have rituals to remind us during the day of the spiritual-self so that we don't drown in addictive me-self pursuits. These safety net practices are to prevent total absorption in ego- driven activities: prayer beads, tassles, mantras, calls to prayer, are some of the rituals for reminding us of the spiritual domain.
    Enter the cell phone. Rather than clutching beads to turn within, everyone is clutching a cell phone to turn "out there." This quest is non-stop and knows no boundaries. A recent New Yorker cover brilliantly captures the phenomenon. It pictures a family standing on a beach--obviously on vacation (for inner peace?)---mom, dad, sister and brother are each staring at their cell phone screens, their backs to the turquoise tropical bay.
    But I don't have to go to an exotic island to witness such a scene. As I walk past outdoor cafes on Manhattan's upper east side, everyone seems to be gazing at a screen, not at their companions. The same on buses, elevators, and even people strolling in the park.
    Commentators have criticized this 21st century iconic behavior for its anti-social quality, the addictive element (texting every thought and action), and the absorption in trivial communications ("the pizza here is really good").
    Far more worrisome is that technology has provided the ego with a new high horse to celebrate its glory: The ego rides again. Me central-- my thoughts, my activities, my plans--is the driving force. As the horse picks up speed and savors its self aggrandizement, the spiritual-self fades further and further from sight. Taking yoga classes, eating vegetables, or recycling your trash will not suffice as antidotes.
    Tackling the addiction to technology should be number one on the agenda of serious spiritual seekers. The challenge is to separate the powerful functional uses of technology from the addictive ego-driven applications.
    Sorry, but I don't have a quick fix to suggest. A useful start might be to take a vacation from the non-functional, non-work related uses to get a sense of just how addicted you are. If you've experienced this, you may be spiritually challenged: "Oh my God, where's my cell phone? Oh no, I left it home. How will I get through the day?"
    What a dilemma. You might actually have to turn within.

    Bernard Starr, Ph.D. is a psychologist, author and journalist. His articles for the Scripps Howard News Service have appeared in major newspapers throughout the United States. Currently, his articles appear in OpEd News, and the Huffington Post. He (more...)
     
    The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
    and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors
    Posted by at No comments:
    Labels:

    Monday, August 13, 2012

    App.net hits $500,000 target: now can it rival Twitter with a paid-for service?


    Dalton Caldwell reckons that people will pay for an ad-free real-time social networking service - and now has half a million dollars'funds to prove it, from around 10,000 users. Next: winning in the attention economy
    Twitter
    Twitter on a smartphone. Time is the one resource that's shared out equally - so companies compete for it fiercely. Photograph: Jonathan Hordle/Rex Features
    Would you pay to use Twitter? A service called App.net has just indicated that at least some people would, by hitting a target of raising $500,000 in funding from individuals paying $50, $100 or $1000 to set up a Twitter clone where "users and developers come first, not advertisers".
    The brainchild of Dalton Caldwell, a San Francisco-based developer who was one of the people behind the "web 2.0" resurgence in 2006, the scheme hit its target funding on Sunday evening more than a day ahead of its deadline. At the time of writing 7,448 people are offering to pay the base $50 level for access to post to the service, 2,010 paying $100 to be developers with access to back-end functionality, and 59 paying $1,000 for "pro tier" access including phone support and a personal meeting with Caldwell. (See the graph of funding sources.)
    App.net funding sourcesWhere App.net's funding has come from, by tier (member, developer and "pro")App.net members by tierApp.net members, by tier
    Caldwell began building the service because he, along with a number of other developers, had become uneasy about Twitter's approach to developers building third-party applications, where it has blocked a number of sites and services from accessing its API, the "hook" that external software needs to provide Twitter functionality. As Twitter tries to generate revenues from its fast-growing user base, it has been putting more restrictions on what developers can do - leading to restlessness among those who have built apps for it.
    "We believe that advertising-supported social services are so consistently and inextricably at odds with the interests of users and developers that something must be done," Caldwell wrote on the App.net signup page.
    Speaking to Technology Review, he said that "Twitter created as fundamental a technical innovation as e-mail and HTML itself, and they totally blew it." Twitter has been tightening access to its API and the extent to which developers can use it progressively since 2010.
    The most audacious aspect of the project is that unlike almost every other service coming out of San Francisco - and in stark contrast to Twitter, which is and has been free to post and develop for - App.net charges its users.
    In a blog post in July, Caldwell says that the key problem with Facebook and Twitter, which offer an ad-supported platform, is that "this 'platform" word starts to get very troubling when talking about business models. Building on top of a platform is a foundational risk, and if your platform decided one day that it doesn't like what you are doing, or likes what you are doing so much they want to compete with you, it's Very Bad. Your platform partner can easily damage your quality of service, or simply shut you down. If that happens, your business is dead."
    Caldwell argues that if users and developers are paying to use the service, then the operator has no incentive to shortchange either - and no incentive either to intrude into eithers' experience by inserting adverts into feeds (as both Facebook and Twitter do).
    There are relatively few examples of paid-for alternatives to free services which offer essentially the same functionality as the free version. One isPinboard, a paid-for bookmarking service that offers the same functionality as the free Delicious. While Delicious is free to use, on Pinboard each user pays a one-off fee on joining for lifetime use; the fee rises with the number of users. (Guardian Technology has been a paid-up user of Pinboard since mid-2011.)
    In general, though, paid services struggle to grow as quickly or as large as free ad-supported services because users are reluctant to provide upfront payment to a service that may fail, and where its value to them may be different from that being charged, because peoples' earning power varies widely.
    By contrast ad-supported services in effect charge people for their attention to adverts - and everyone has 24 hours in a day, so in effect everyone pays the same attention cost (though perhaps not potential earnings cost) for an advert.
    Some services then offer "premium" services by exploiting peoples' ability to pay not to have their attention diverted by ads, or for extra functionality - creating "freemium" services with different tiers of users.
    Caldwell though aims to buck the trend for services to try to grow entirely on ad-supported models. The idea of app.net grew from a blogpost on 13 July, in which he announced an "audacious proposal". In it, he pointed to the problems he perceived with SourceForge, an ad-supported code repository: "the site was designed to squeeze every lasat advertising penny out of you," Caldwell wrote. By contrast, he pointed to Github, a freemium service which offers some facilities for free and charges for others.
    "Contemplate for a moment how scary a theoretical purely ad-supported Dropbox would be," he noted, referring to the cloud-based freemium storage service which offers a shareable file locker service. "I can easily imagine the overly-cheerful corporate blogpost explaining why placing ads in my personal documents, or selling the file-listing of my music collection to the music industry, or shutting down IFTTT [If This Then That, a service that allows automation of web services] API access is 'important to the health and welfare of the community.' I happily pay to avoid that nightmare scenario, wouldn't you?"
    At its core, Caldwell's proposal - and its success so far, attracting just under 10,000 paying customers - points to a rumble of dissatisfaction within some parts of American culture with the pervasive nature of advertising there. "Why isn't there an opportunity to pay money to get an ad-free feed from a company where the product is something you pay for, not, well, you?" Caldwell asks.
    He points to Imeem - a social media sharing company he founded and ran - which, despite raising more than $50m in venture capital and selling more than $2m of advertising per month at its peak, was sold to MySpace in 2009.
    Instead, he revealed, he has been focussing on a service called App.net, "a paid service for mobile application developers", with a consumer-focussed iOS app and service.
    Caldwell thinks that the 10,000 figure for paying backers is sufficiently large to mark a critical mass - as long as the backers are the right people. Paul Graham, a venture capitalist with long experience in the software industry, suggests that "a search engine whose users consisted of the top 10,000 hackers and no one else would be in a very powerful position despite its small size".
    Certainly App.net has garnered a number of high-profile names, including Stephen Fry and many of the people who were early adopters of Twitter.
    What is less easy to know is how App.net will fare in what will become a war for time and attention with bigger, established sites and services. Facebook has 955 million users; Twitter, more than 100 million. Will 10,000 be enough to start changing that?
    Posted by at No comments:
    Labels:
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)