Except as I said in the other thread, Apple has a very reasonable chance of winning most of these claims, and any level-headed analysis of the issues makes that clear.
Seriously? Again? I know you've convinced yourself that you're being objective and that I'm just an Android fanboy, but let's be real here: I've provided you with like 3-4 pages worth of facts and independent references in two threads showing you where trade dress law stems from, as well as discussing subsequent case law (some of which Apple won) showing you why they won't support this claim.
All you have provided is a link to MyNextSite (which I'd already read) that doesn't actually delve into the legal basis, it just goes over the complaint with a fine-toothed comb to to explain what it says to reader. Beyond that you haven't made even a token attempt to provide any other rulings that would support Apple's claims, and to be honest I don't think you know enough about the law to even find them. Instead you are hiding behind pseudo-authoritative claims like "any level-headed analysis" or "all of the other people on the web say so", yet you provide neither analysis nor links to anyone who has analyzed the case law here. Even a quick google search shows that your claim that "everyone is saying so" is totally wrong. Mainstream tech sites like Engadget, TechCrunch, and BGR are staying completely mum on having an opinion. And even some Mac fan sites, like
Cult of Mac takes a decidedly condescending view of most of Apple's larger claims.
So it's nothing but a myth that there's some large contingent of cogent arguments out there in favor of Apple that I'm ignoring. Moreover, I'm the only one actually supplying facts, names, links, and examples in this debate. Unless you have a shred of evidence, or a credible link to anyone who actually covers the legal and precedent basis for your conclusion (which I would be fascinated to read) you are just grandstanding, and at the least you should stop berating others on this forum by pretending that they're simpletons and you are the voice of sanity.
Oh, and check that language about Apple 'delaying' the iPhone. They can't delay what hasn't been announced. It has been long rumored that Apple would adjust the iPhone or iPad's launch schedule to line up with that of the iPod Touch, and they are doing that this year.
Riiiight. And Motorola isn't canceling the Bionic and applying the name to another phone, they're just "delaying it for a redesign so that the phone will better meet consumer expectations". Granted, Apple does a good job of purposely not making announcements early so they don't have to explain when they make these shifts, but you're swallowing the kool-aid if you think Apple planned this. By the way, while it HAS long been rumored that there would be another iPad later this year (which is a faster release, not a slower one) there were pretty much no rumors on the iPhone delay until about a week or so before Apple leaked it through their usual channels. Make of that what you will, as I freely admit there's no way to prove this either way without knowledge from inside Apple.
I'll also reiterate what I said in the other thread: this will not affect Samsung and Apple's component relationship. Those contracts provide Samsung with billions and billions of dollars every year, and that is business that, quite frankly, they cannot afford to lose. And even if Samsung attempted to deny Apple parts or slow down their production lines, they have contracts that would most certainly cost Samsung billions of dollars in fees for breaking those contracts.
Ok, I may see where some of the misunderstanding is coming from. It sounds like you think that I am saying that Samsung agreed to provide say 31.276 million copies of gizmo X, but now doesn't want to (also, I think you sometimes mix in the fact that others suggest that Samsung would threaten to cancel their contract over this lawsuit). You are 100% correct that Samsung would never cancel or threaten to cancel selling components with Apple. Like all businesses, they are happy to make a profit from anyone, even if they are battling it out in court on some other issue. But alas, component deals are not that simple.
In reality there is a wide range of procurement practices, and by necessity they have a lot of flexibility built in, because manufacturers cannot always predict how many they can produce (see current iPad woes) and companies cannot always predict how many they will need (see the Asus Transformer for a recent example). Despite this uncertainty, the system is actually under a very tight squeeze due to the widespread use of lean manufacturing (if you're curious, the modern version of lean production grew out of Japanese auto manufacturing practices in the '80s. You can read a decent synopsis
here.)
The long and short of it is that tech companies try to keep the amount of goods on hand low by matching production to expected demand. Those decisions are made quite a while in advance, so enough flexibility is built into lines to try and cover the unknowns. For example production lines often can be switched over in reasonably short time periods (weeks or months) to make other components. This works fairly well, and even occasionally not being able to meet demand for a month or two is seen as less expensive then frequently producing too much product that has to be heavily discounted or (much worse) collected from retailers and disposed of.
That said, component manufacturers (especially large ones who produce more of an item than any one company will buy) build in additional flexibility, because any down time is money lost. So they turn to contract flexibility as well. Part of that flexibility is based on making contracts with multiple companies for the same lines. Contracts can be made on percent of output, they can be made based on number of lines, etc. They can of course also be based on specific numbers. In all of those cases there are many, many caveats built in, including contract priority (who gets what in case of a crunch), under what circumstances you can increase production (or the flip, when components will be decreased, or at least not be increased due to use by others). The almost always have a minimum component guaranty, but the clauses for increasing component allotment can be very complicated - Apple actually makes this even more difficult, as their products routinely require components that are very new, increasing the odds that not all lines may be up in time, or that there aren't otherwise enough of the component to go around.
My guess is that Samsung is saying they'll meet their contractual obligations for the minimum number of components, but is refusing to shift capacity to meet increased numbers that Apple wants, for the simple reason that Samsung also needs those parts. It's possible that Samsung is also exercising a clause that lets them reduce some of Apple's component numbers (similar to what they did to HTC last year) but Apple strikes me as the kind of company that would overpay to avoid that sort of clause. Regardless, if Apple now thinks they need twice the monthly capacity as the minimum contract obligation and Samsung is refusing to increase their shipments to Apple, it amounts to the same thing in the end - a delayed iPhone or one that has stock shortages.
Given the timing of the negotiations original negotiations (from what Patel and others have said), their length prior to litigation, the timing of the current lawsuit relative to Apple's usual (but now delayed) launch window, and the fact that Apple is making claims far broader than they can probably win, all suggest to me that they were actually negotiating over trying to get more components out of Samsung, and Samsung has refused.
What apple's doing isn't related to self-destructive hubris. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
The funny thing is you and I totally agree on this; but you've gotten the mistaken notions that Apple is likely to win their trade dress claims (which they aren't) and that there would be some negative consequence if Apple were trying to apply leverage to get more capacity from Samsung (which is actually normal practice for large purchasers...when you buy more than anyone else, you don't expect to hear the word "no" very often). Apple is in a very tight spot if they have a component shortage, and the current delay is consistent with this (as are rumors that the phone could slip to 2012). I'm sure neither Apple nor Samsung are doing anything illegal in this sense, they simply have two disputes, one of which is more important (component shortage) but can't be solved in court, so Apple is firing off proxy shots against the very line of Samsung products that is causing the component issue.
The only reason this sort of commonplace corporate behavior would be surprising is if you have some rose-colored view of Apple as somehow being above the usual business practices of oversized corporations. But if that's the case, then you should be careful about throwing fanboy-stones in your glass house.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram