Phil Schiller: Samsung’s copycat antics have weakened the world’s view of Apple as an innovator

Phil Schiller: Samsung’s copycat antics have weakened the world’s view of Apple as an innovatorHey everyone! Guess what? Remember the seemingly never-ending patent dispute between Samsung and Apple in the US? The one in which Apple was initially awarded $1 billion in damages? It’s back!

Specifically, we’re back in court trying to determine exactly how much Samsung should pay in damages, since the original figure was deemed to be, well, a tad high. Apple is demanding $380 million, while the South Koreans are coming in low at $52 million.

In the first of presumably many chapters, here we’re listening to Phil Schiller, Apple’s Senior Vice President of Worldwide Marketing. He reckons Samsung’s blatant copycat antics have led people to question Apple’s position as an innovator.

“It weakens the view that the world has for Apple,” says Schiller. The release of products so close in design to the iPhone and iPad has led consumers to “question our innovation and design skills in a way that people never used to.”

Amusingly, Samsung attorney Bill Price demanded of Schiller: “Apple doesn’t own a patent on a product being beautiful or sexy. Isn’t that correct?”

Then, holding up a Samung Galaxy tablet, he suggested: “Apple doesn’t own the right to preclude the design of this hardware.”

“I don’t know which Samsung devices are allowed to copy our devices and which ones aren’t,” replied Schiller, adding that the tablet “looks like an iPad.”

Citing an email communication between Apple executives, Price proposed that the iPad mini was rolled out in response to praise for the 7in Samsung Galaxy Tab, though Schiller insisted it was the result of an internal engineering experiment with the aim of cramming all the goodness of the full-size iPad into a smaller device.

Inevitably, we’ll have more on this in the coming weeks. Good times.

via: The Wall Street Journal

Add a comment
6 comments

JanSt / MOD  Nov. 16, 2013 at 19:04

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

JanSt / MOD  Nov. 16, 2013 at 19:11

PS: Schiller, imagine how much people would question Apple's ability to innovate if you relaunched a phone in a Nokia-esque plastic shell without any other significant changes?! That is Samsung's fault, too?

socialjeebus  Nov. 17, 2013 at 01:22

PS: Schiller, imagine how much people would question Apple's ability to innovate if you relaunched a phone in a Nokia-esque plastic shell without any other significant changes?! That is Samsung's fault, too?

Of course it is.

Much like it was iFone's fault when they chose a name similar to one that Apple would choose several years later.

Or it was Creative's fault when Apple decided to use their menus.

Or Samsung's fault when Apple realised they needed to use UMTS to build an iPhone.

I think though that the case has at least been positive in the sense, that Samsung and others have produced more distinctive devices (the Note 3 and GS4).

Still I'd suggest that both companies images are being harmed more by ongoing litigation (the Apple legal team's keystone cops approach to the iFone and iPad cases provided more than enough comedic fodder over here) than phones that were released 3 years ago that the vast majority of consumers have forgotten about / didn't even know about in the first place.

I think, that to an extent, this has been somewhat of a Barbara Streisand moment for Apple, and however much they win, they'll ultimately end-up being the loser in this particular trial.

JanSt / MOD  Nov. 17, 2013 at 12:45

Barbara Streisand moment Huh? Enlighten me plz

socialjeebus  Nov. 17, 2013 at 15:02

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Whilst obviously the case has had nothing to do with privacy. I think to extent the publicity surrounding the case has had the effect of actually improving Samsung's image.

I think some of the arguments and editorialising in the media have had the unintended consequence of uplifting Samsung in the eyes of the Western consumer.

For one, there's been a lot of coverage in the media, and Samsung rarely get any non-paid for coverage in the Western media.

Another thing that people might have taken away is that Apple 'fears' Samsung. Indeed there hasn't been another case with this kind of coverage in the general press before between two mobile phone manufacturers (and hopefully there won't be again).

The fact that the trial is being held in the US also hurts Apple's image outside the US as it will inevitably lead to suspicions of bias (perhaps compounded by the Obama ITC veto).

I also think that beyond tech-enthusiasts and fanboys, the vast majority of customers simply don't care one way or the other (there certainly hasn't been any collapse in sales).

That couple with several other high-profile(-ish) lawsuits against foreign companies, I think will ultimately see Apple labelled as somewhat of a bully regardless of right or wrong.

JanSt / MOD  Nov. 17, 2013 at 15:17

I also think that beyond tech-enthusiasts and fanboys, the vast majority of customers simply don't care one way or the other (there certainly hasn't been any collapse in sales).

Absolutely true.... Tech fans, bloggers and 'journalists' are very very vocal.
Lets face it: they (and us here at mobot) do not promote a cure for cancer or the end of world hunger. WE chat about gadgets.

But that isn't enough for many - nope, they need the mantle of self-importance and they weave it from hype and piffle. They need to justify harping on and on about RAM and pixel density and necessary upgrades while banks pull the rugs away from under our feet.

Don't get me wrong: I enjoy gadgets, and I enjoy a debate about the strings attached to
Elop's blank smile or Schmidt's predatory grin... I can spend a lot of time on this; BUT it doesn't matter. And people less informed than us know that.

Email:

You don't need an account to comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

Comment: