Mostrando las entradas con la etiqueta Samsung vs Apple. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando las entradas con la etiqueta Samsung vs Apple. Mostrar todas las entradas

2013/06/06

EEUU falla contra Apple en “guerra de patentes” con coreana Samsung

Tribunal comercial dijo que la firma de la manzana infringió una patente de su rival surcoreana.

En agosto del año pasado, en medio de la denominada “guerra de patentes”, Apple se anotó una victoria contundente frente a Samsung luego que un tribunal de California dictaminara que la coreana infringió varias patentes de su rival estadounidense.

El fallo dio la vuelta al mundo porque, además, impuso una multa de US$ 1.000 millones al fabricante del Galaxy.

Ocho meses de después, la historia se revierte. Es que la Comisión de Comercio Internacional de Estados Unidos determinó que la empresa fundada por Steve Jobs infringió en algunos aparatos una patente de Samsung relacionada con la tecnología inalámbrica y la capacidad para transmitir varios servicios de manera simultánea. Esta función es considerada esencial en la interoperabilidad de los aparatos.

El fallo del panel prohibió la importación a Estados Unidos de los iPhone4 y iPad 2 3G que comercializan las operadoras AT&T, T-Mobile y dos carriers regionales General Communication (Alska) y CT Cube LP (Texas).

“La comisión ha determinado que el remedio apropiado es una orden de exclusión limitada y una orden que prohíba a Apple la importación, venta o distribución en Estados Unidos de artefactos de comunicación inalámbricos, dispositivos de procesamiento de datos y música portátil y tablets” que violen esos patentes, señala el fallo que el organismo publicó en su página web. 



El factor Obama


La mayor firma tecnológica del mundo medida en bolsa no se quedará de brazos cruzados. Apple anunció que apelará a la resolución que afecta a las líneas más bien antiguas de sus teléfonos y tablets.

“Nos decepciona que la comisión haya anulado un fallo previo, y pensamos apelarlo. La decisión de hoy no afecta la disponibilidad de los productos de Apple en Estados Unidos”, aclaró Kristin Huguet, vocera de Apple. 

Según Apple, Samsung está recurriendo a una estrategia “que ya ha sido rechazada por los tribunales y reguladores en todo el mundo”.

“Ellos han admitido que (esa estrategia) va en contra de los intereses de los consumidores en Europa y otras partes, pero acá en EE.UU., Samsung continúa intentando bloquear la venta de productos de Apple usando patentes que acordaron ofrecer a cualquiera por una cuota razonable”, se quejó Apple.

“Creemos que la decisión final de la ITC confirma el historial de Apple de aprovechar las innovaciones tecnológicas de Samsung”, expresó luego la firma surcoreana en un breve comunicado.

En ese contexto, la firma estadounidense tiene dos opciones: apelar ante un tribunal federal o esperar una ayuda del mismísimo Barack Obama. Claro porque las órdenes de exclusión son enviadas al presidente de Estados Unidos, quien tiene 60 días para revisarlas y, eventualmente, anular el fallo.



Contexto


La resolución se produce en medio de la cerrada batalla entre estos dos gigantes por el dominio del mundo móvil. Apple, que empujó y lideró el mercado de smartphones, hoy es superado con holgura por Samsung. Y aunque sigue dominando el mundo de los tablets, su rival surcoreana crece de manera mucho más veloz y no sería extraño que la supere en el corto plazo.
Imagen foto_00000001
 www.df.cl

2013/06/05

The New Samsung Victory Over Apple - What It Means To Cupertino

Image representing iPhone 4 as depicted in Cru...You may already have read that the ITC has awarded Samsung a victory in one part of the long running battle between Apple and Samsung over smartphone and tablet markets. It’s easy to become immune to new developments in this case, it’s been going on so long. But you’ll remember Apple’s victory in a San Jose court last August – initially it looked like costing Samsung over $1 billion.
The significance of the current victory for Samsung is that it comes for a technology infringement and that it comes from the US International Trade Commission (ITC) – see here for the BBC’s coverageof the ruling. Most of the public heat around this battle, to date, has been caused by design patents and has been instigated by Apple in a bid to prevent Samsung selling its products, particularly in the US market
Why is it important? Theoretically it could lead to the iPhone 4 being taken off the market, though that is highly unlikely. It’s importance lies more in what it tells us about patents, IP and competitive advantage. Apple is dependent on design patents.
The development of design “patents” is, on the face of it, an anomaly. Patents are supposed to be awarded for inventive steps and while interface designs can be said to be highly skilled and creative, it’s a stretch to compare them with inventions. Yet design patents are on the increase and Apple is a pioneer. I asked patent experts Article One Partners to comment on that and this is their take:
Although there has been an increase in the number of design patent applications,  the data suggests that the proportion of design patent applications over total patent applications has been fairly stable for the past ten years. This does not mean that companies do not recognize the importance of design. The more interesting trend is the dramatic increase in overall patent applications.
What that means is that design patents are also dramatically increasing. And the reason, as Cheryl Milone, CEO at Article One points out, is that it is the design level of the product that is now leveraging large markets. Apple is an incredible example of that at work.
In fact the design patent is a feature of the evolving IP environment because American tech companies have moved away from manufacturing towards software and then services.
Design patenting is becoming a critical area of IP protection for them but perhaps not for companies with deeper, manufacturing IP like Samsung.
Of course, the ITC ruling will not be the last we hear of this current aspect of the dispute. Apple can appeal and President Obama can overturn the ITC ruling. More important, the fact that this is a technology patent makes it look like a much more solid win for Samsung (go here for some of the weaknesses in the ruling).
Samsung, therefore, was acerbic in its comments on the ITC ruling. According to the BBC they reacted by commenting:
“We believe the ITC’s final determination has confirmed Apple’s history of free-riding on Samsung’s technological innovations.”
Now that this dispute is playing out at the level of technology it is also worth recalling that Apple is dependent on Samsung as a supplier and is in danger of being out-competed by them at in areas like display technology.
Apple has recently been filing a number of  patents that probably require PHOLED and AMOLED displays as it gears up a new rounded or flexible display smartphone (it is has also been receiving supplies of 1.5″ PHOLED screens for its rumored iWatch).
In this next generation of displays it is going to struggle to stay away from Samsung technology as Samsung has moved PHOLED technology on a step with the S4, owns the company that provides the PenTile technology that brings a truer blue to PHOLED displays, and owns a stake in the company, Nanosys, with the best claim to be advancing LCD screen technology, along with 3M.
The big question then is how substantial can Apple make design patents, because it has deep dependencies in the underlying technologies? It’s not just a dilemma for Apple. As we move to a device economy, I suspect having hardware IP is going to prove to be a critical competitive advantage.
Design might open up new markets but new design opportunities exist in display hardware. There is abundant opportunity in hardware innovation right  now and a lot of litigation ahead if your dependency lies in design.
Meanwhile Apple’s design case against Samsung has softened up over the past 10 months – the August 2012 design patent infringement fine was reduced to $600 million and is now up for retrial. So the significance of this week’s ruling has wide implications. It’s about where the future of IP lies. To right the balance, the US needs to legislate around design patents or to find some way to underline their legitimacy, fast.

2013/03/17

Samsung vs Apple, When Design Thinking Came to Town


Shortly after Samsung’s famous loss to Apple in a San Jose court last year, the South Korean electronics’ giant opened a new design studio in San Francisco.
You’ll remember that case – it centered on design patents.
The new Studio is run by ex-Googler Dennis Miloseski, a user experience specialist. It has end-to-end product responsibility across mobile, tablet and domestic appliances for what Dennis calls turning science fiction into science fact. That is some portfolio! But it’s a young studio and we’ve yet to see any outputs from it.
Still, it’s a sign of where Samsung is investing its money and at the Engadget Expand conference, this week, Miloseski explained some of the company’s evolving  design philosophy. I’ll come on to it in a minute.
While some commentators think last Thursday’s Galaxy S 4 launch heralds little threat to Apple, I disagree. And the more I learn about Samsung and the breadth of its talent investment, the more it looks capable of changing the smartphone paradigm.
Here’s a case in point, though it may seem like a slight diversion.
For those who don’t know the name Chris Bangle, Bangle is/was about the most controversial name in modern auto design.
For 17 years he headed design at BMW and revolutionized the German brand. He did for BMW what Steve Jobs did for Apple, prior to the iPhone.
Before the Apple vs Samsung  San Jose case, mentioned above, Samsung had already opened negotiations with Chris Bangle Associates, Bangle’s private consulting firm, to draw Bangle in as a Master Designer. The two parties have been pretty tight lipped about what happened.
Bangle is a major figure not just in design but in enterprise and product vision.
His car designs were not just emotive for the sake of it. They didn’t just sell more cars for BMW. They shook up the whole car industry.
Prior to Bangle’s arrival car design was all about an expression of power – ok, go back to the fifties and car design was an expression of fantasy (these things can fly). But by the eighties BMW owners believed they had bought the ultimate driving machine, ’nuff said. It had a great engine.
But BMW knew an engine did less and less to differentiate a vehicle. Engineering took you only so far.
When Bangle started to put a fancy back end on the BMW 7 series and oversaw innovations that tapped into the emotional spirit of customers, brought in the Mini, and even brought femininity to the 3 series, petrol heads around the world hated him and even campaigned for BMW to sack him.
So Bangle is controversial and good. When the Koreans began talking to him, the press said, ok, is this now Samsung’s Steve Jobs riding into town?
But the analogy is all wrong. Jobs was a multi-disciplinary business man, and start-up kind of guy, whose company hired a great designer in Ive. Bangle is a passionate advocate for design that taps into prevailing emotions. Bangle also talks unashamedly of design as art and even as love. He doesn’t just want to humanize product, he wants people to realize their potential. And what he sees right now is a new generation of people whose desire is to share.
But strange to tell he is not himself, necessarily, a great designer. He is a visionary and a manager of talent.
In fact he has a reputation as a supreme design manager who wrestles relentlessly with what the future will bring. His Deep Blue project at BMW, begun in 1996, was aimed at discovering what would supersede the SUV – when SUV’s were gaining solid market momentum. And that’s his BMW training – look far into the future and understand the consequences of everything you do.
But it is still not clear what Bangle is doing at Samsung, if anything. At the end of last year  Samsung said:
“This is an investment to secure a famous global designer in order to make our designs more luxurious,” said a senior Samsung official. “We will set up a design research center for Bangle in a European location, such as Italy, and have about 10 researchers from Samsung work with him.”
Bangle also worked with Samsung on their Young Designers competition 2012. And is reported by the Korean Herald to be working on domestic appliances not on phones or computers.
So the question is how influential has Bangle been in his dealings with Samsung? As yet we don’t know – he has denied being involved in mobile products. But he is, reputedly, the design master. And as a master of design management it is most likely that he has helped Samsung to reorganize its design department. But both parties say very little about their dealings.

I’m sure we’ll find out more about the Bangle influence one way or the other in the coming weeks. But Miloseski talks the same kind of language.
He says that Samsung has a deep design heritage and history that his studio will give more expression to as they bring software and hardware together in new ways. Samsung is looking to create products with soul, with more meaningful experiences, enabling people to use technology in new ways. And in the Galaxy S4 the first step of that journey is visible in its sensory scrolling innovations.
And he has recruited designers with precisely the kind of backgroundSamsung needs as it builds it lifestyle peripherals portfolio, music services etc.
The Miloseski interview is worth a look – though it doesn’t reveal a huge amount. Samsung, in fact, are playing their design credentials close to their chests at this point, given who their competition is.
But there is no question that long before that San Jose court rapped them with a billion dollar fine, they were doing what BMW had done before them and Hyundai have done since. Buying in good design brains.
That’s also why I think we’ll see the expression of that across devices and domestic appliances, a lot faster then some people realize.
Though you may have been put of by Thursday’s Radio City event, Samsung is making some smart moves in design. And that means the pressure on Apple will not relent in any area.