STORY BACKGROUND
The Characters
Apple Inc., formerly known as Apple Computer Inc., is an American multinational listed company headquartered in the middle of Silicon Valley. It designs its own computer operating system and consumer electronics, while it mainly sell the hardware through its own over 357 retail stores. It is one of the biggest mobile phone and PC manufacturers worldwide, and also a tech giant with most market value, which is estimated at up to 500 billion US dollars in February 2012. Nowadays, iPhone and iPad have become the best-selling electronic products. Apple has been able to create a high-end product with an appealing brand image which is associated as fashionable, innovative and creative.
Samsung Group is a South Korean multinational conglomerate headquartered in Samsung Town, Seoul. It comprises of numerous subsidiaries and Samsung Electronics is the flagship subsidiary of Samsung Group. In the smartphone market, the representative product for Samsung, the Galaxy S i9000, is the second best-selling mobile phone right after the iPhone and has become the only product that can compete with iPhone for market share.
The Story
The Story
CONFLICT HISTORY
Changes in Relationships
In the past, Apple and Samsung's partnership established based on the needs for both parties to collaborate and rely on one another to make products. During this time, a win-win situation of collaboration as supplier and customer prevailed.
As times goes on, both companies explored the opportunity in terms of partnership. Samsung focuses on manufacturing semi-conductors and Apple both focus on design and selling electronic devices. There are no conflicts since each other focuses on different market areas. Because of their vertical relationship, Samsung is accommodating by not joining the electronic devices market but only act as a supplier of semi-conductors.
However, the cooperation between the two companies broke due to Samsung entering the electronic device market later and starting to eat up Apple’s share market. The case switched from a win-win situation to compromise because Apple and Samsung focused on the high-end and low-end market respectively.
Today, due to the closer product similarity and market share, Apple and Samsung are playing a tough game in order to balance the relationship with each other. However, in fact, they are far more than mere competitors. Apple still needs to rely on Samsung to supply major parts and the partnership is still existing. Therefore Samsung is a very important co-operative enterprise for Apple by offering the components for producing iPhone and iPad.
However, the software in Samsung’s smartphones is offered by Google Android, the sworn enemy of Apple. The Galaxy S and Galaxy Tab 10.1 are sold like hot cakes now and are gaining more and more market share, which might be the reason why Apple is willing to risk breaking its long-standing relationship with Samsung.
Trigger for the Patent War
 |
| Summary of the Evolution of Smartphones (Buck, 2011) |
The above image clearly illustrates that starting from the early 1990's with IBM's Simon, the evolution and emergence of smartphones triggered a whole new era of technology and created an entirely new segment of mobile device users. Apple was the first company to launch a revolutionary mobile phone that completely changed the game. With its iPhone 3 released in 2007, Apple, according to strategic management terms, was the "first-mover". As the first-mover, Apple needs to do all it can to attack and counter-attack so called "early followers", such as Samsung or "late followers", such as Nokia. One way to win more market share might be through patent wars.
THE PATENT WAR PROGRESS
As the above image indicates, Apple and Samsung have been engaging in a long, arduous patent lawsuit process for over a year now spanning from Europe, the US, Australia to Asia. The patent disputes started when Samsung launched its Galaxy series in April 2011. Apple filed a lawsuit against Samsung, arguing that the company's smartphones violate its patents and should be banned from sale in Germany. That lawsuit followed another Samsung filed against Apple in a German court, alleging the iPhone maker violates several patents, including one related to how emoticons are displayed on-screen.
The legal battles are indicative of a maturing mobile market that’s in the middle of determining its long-term leaders with Apple, Samsung, Google and Microsoft.
Patent War Timeline
The following timeline illustrates the still on-going process between the two rivals, Apple and Samsung that started exactly a year ago. It clearly shows that both companies strongly believe in their position and that the other rival has broken their patents since there are no signs of either party backing down.
 |
| Legal Battle Timeline (Buck, 2011) |
The current status of the patent war situation in April 2012 is that so far, neither company has been able to gain the upper hand.
ANALYSES FROM DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES
1. COMPARATIVE MANAGEMENT
Are Apple and Samsung Using Comparative Management?
Yes, this seems to be the case. But first things first, what is Comparative Management? It is defined as the simultaneous study of management or business practice in two or more different cultures, countries or companies. It analyzes the extent to which management principles and decisions are applicable from one country to another.
Why Germany?
Ok, so let's put the above in the context of this case. Apple is from the US and Samsung from South Korea. The first country Apple decided to sue Samsung was in Germany (Reisinger, 2012). Why Germany? It wasn't by mere coincidence. According to O'Brien (2012), German companies concentrate intensely on product quality and product service (e.g. Mercedes-Benz and Porsche) to provide competition on the basis of excellence in their products and services.
Additionally, German industries tend to work closely with governments, adhering to government standards, policies, and regulations. Virtually, all German products are subject to norms established through consultation between industry and government, with strong inputs from the management associations, chambers of commerce, and trade unions. Based on this, Apple must have thought it had a greater chance in beating Samsung in Germany since they believe that "the copying is so pervasive, they appear to be actual Apple products". They hoped German courts would come to the same conclusion as them. And Apple's possible comparative management research proves their decision right. Apple won the ruling in a Dusseldorf court in 2011 that banned the sale of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer in Germany. However, Samsung quickly modified the device, releasing the Galaxy Tab 10.1N. Apple sued to block sales of the new device, but a court in Munich denied its request.
Similar Case for Microsoft vs. Motorola
Germany seems to be at the epicenter of global patent battles among tech rivals. For example, Microsoft's decision to move its European logistics and distribution headquarters from Germany to the Netherlands has generated a debate over patent law here, where it is easy to block the sale of a rival's product even before an infringement claim is verified. Microsoft cited the potential consequences of a lawsuit brought against it in Germany by Motorola Mobility as a factor in its decision to move its logistics center from the town of Duren, a small German town near the Dutch border, into the Netherlands.
Motorola Mobility has asked a court in Mannheim, Germany, to stop Microsoft from distributing its Xbox game consoles and Windows 7 operating system software because they use a video streaming technology that Motorola claims to own.
Making Use of Germany As a Springboard
According to Peter-Michael Weisse (Tolentino, 2012), attorney at intellectual-property litigation firm in Germany, the reason why Apple and Samsung might have decided to choose to sue each other in German courts is because if they've done any comparative management, both would come to the conclusion that German courts are inexpensive, fast, allow for a ruling within a year. Additionally the result in a German court will secure a commercial advantage compared to other courts in other European countries.
The same source continues stating: “If you want to conquer the European market and you’re being stopped in Germany, most of the time that’s enough to throw in the towel.” (Tolentino, 2012). Many companies say if they cannot sell in Germany, it’s no use to go ahead with a product somewhere else.
Joachim Henkel, a professor of management at the Technical University in Munich, said big international companies were often seeking to exploit the German system for strategic advantage. Thus in the end, "usually, what masquerades as a patent dispute is in actuality a dispute motivated by business strategy", he states (O'Brien, 2012).
2. CREATIVITY AND MORALWhat is Creativity?
The fundamental argument is on CREATIVITY. What is Creativity?
According to the English dictionary, creativity means: "the ability to make or bring into existence something new" (Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2012). Thus, it means making something “new”. In other words, it is also the ability to create something novel and appropriate (Amabile & Khaire, 2008).
So what is “New”? It is quite arguable if a "New" component should be defined as “New”, or combining all existing components (but components not first used by you) into a never-existed product means “New”? Let's take for example the famous animation company, Pixar. In 1995, they created a feature film called "Toy Story".
 |
| A Toy Story Poster (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc, 2012) |
Toy Story has generally been perceived as “creating” something (i.e. the picture) "New". We don't believe anyone would think they are not creating.
However, how about the famous Japanese comic, Slam Dunk?
.jpg)
You may claim that it definitely is an original creation by the comic writer, Takehiko Inoue. Nevertheless, there are discussions on the web that some of the "drawings" are copy official NBA photos (National Basketball Association). Here are a few examples:
.jpg)
You may claim that it definitely is an original creation by the comic writer, Takehiko Inoue. Nevertheless, there are discussions on the web that some of the "drawings" are copy official NBA photos (National Basketball Association). Here are a few examples:
 |
| Example 1. Slam Dunk vs NBA photos (ComiPress, 2007) |
 |
| Example 2. Slam Dunk vs NBA photos (ComiPress, 2007) |
So here is a question for you:
Can it be defined as a new creation when Apple / Samsung combine their own creations (e.g. iOS 5) with others' creations (e.g. wifi) to make new products?
 |
| Apple Collides With Samsung (iPhone Zone, 2011) |
Someone would argue that Innovation is different from Creativity.
According to Joyce Wycoff (the president of ThinkSmart Learning Systems and founder of the Innovation Network, an organization focusing on helping organizations develop a core competency in innovation), innovation is a “mental extreme sport” that requires “pulling unrelated things together to innovate" (Karacapilidis, 2010). In short, it is not necessary to create all new components to “innovate” a product. The definition seems to answer the above question about Apple / Samsung innovating something, by pulling from others' creations together. However someone would still argue that the components (i.e. iOS 5, wifi) are not “unrelated things”. Thus, Apple / Samsung cannot be regarded as 100% innovators of smartphones according to the above definition of innovation.
Another example for you is their connectors.
 |
| Similarities between connectors (Iphone Active, 2012) |
As we have mentioned, Apple and Samsung are not the sole innovator of smartphones, they are both “inspired” by other's innovations to complete their products. The logic is simple, Apple gathers up all the technology required and innovates some of the missing parts to complete the products. Also, Samsung is taking on a similar approach. One of the legal cases where Apple filed for a patent case in Germany is called trade dress. Apple is suing Samsung for similarities in the Galaxy device outlook that are almost identical to iPhone and iPad. Apple owns the design patents which show similarity, however, when we look at the electronic world, the similarity does not mean Galaxy violating Apple's patent.
 |
| Registered Community Design No.748280-0006 (Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P., 2012) |
Let's take a regular notebook computer as an example. A notebook computer has a flip monitor which fixed to the dock with a keyboard. Perhaps, no one would remember who innovated such design, but the design has become so common that almost every notebook computer share the same design. We don't see any companies suing each other for the notebook design. The reason is simple. The design of the notebook is based on its function, and the mechanical design has to be designed in such a way to work. Therefore, every notebook maker follows the design to produce their notebook.
 |
| Can this notebook design get a patent? |
Tablets and smartphones are other innovations of electronic devices just like the portable notebook computers. Smartphones and tablets also have similar mechanical designs in order for the product to work. This time, Apple uses its patent design to claim that Apple is the inventor and prevents its rival from copying it. Indeed, Apple does not win most of the patent suing except in Germany which prohibits Samsung to sell its Galaxy products in Germany. Apple and Samsung smartphones have different button designs, therefore, the design is not identical. We do not encourage violating patents, but we have to understand some similaries are inevitable due to the function of the device which has to follow the rules of geometry of the human body.
Plagiarism
So can either Apple or Samsung be accused of plagiarism?
According to the English dictionary, plagiarism means: "an act or instance to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own: use (another's production) without crediting the source" (Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2012). Thus, it means that if someone directly copies other(s') idea as his/her own is defined as plagiarism. For instance, “copying” 100% content from a book and claiming the document was written by you. Therefore, how about this case? Apple / Samsung had their own separate product creations, so it seems that it is not 100% plagiarism.
Intellectual Property Protection
Hence, you may say that Intellectual Property Protection is for what the above arguments are all about. How does Intellectual Property Protection affect our daily lives?
The contemporary term of intellectual property is founded on 1867 by the North German Confederation that was granted the legislative power to protect intellectual property, aka Schutz des geistigen Eigentums. Generally, Intellectual Property is defined as "a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which a set of exclusive rights are recognized under the corresponding fields of law" (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 2012). A wide range of intangible assets are protected under the intellectual property law where owners are granted certain exclusive rights including the product designs, while patents is one of the common types of intellectual property right.
Short Conclusion
Their interest are to have a clear brand image of being creative, while they desire to gain respects and appreciation of the customers.
3. ECONOMICAL AND FINANCIAL
Statistical Facts for the Economic Conflict
One major reason why Apple filed a patent war against Samsung is due to the threats of substitute by Samsung's Galaxy product line. According to Bloomberg.com, Samsung has overwhelmed Apple by becoming the world’s largest smartphone seller in the third quarter in 2011 after shipping 27.8 million units (Yang, 2012). Indeed, the tripled sales of smartphone in the last quarter of Samsung leaded its market share increase in more than 200%. Apparently, Apple is not happy with and is about to take every action to protect its market share and profit.
 |
| Smartphone Vendor Arena in H1 2011 (Kapetanakis, 2011) |
According to the data collected in the first half of 2011, Apple and Samsung both have a substantial share of Smartphone market share, so Apple certainly looks on Samsung as its major rival. In the last quarter of 2011, iPad sales rose 111 % to 15.43 million units, while other tablets brands such as Galaxy Tabor ASUS were selling 11.63 million. The iPad's actual share is 83 % of the tablet market in the US. However, the most recent data shows that iPad has only a share of 57.6 % of the tablet market share and Galaxy Tab is still one of the rivals who is eating up the Apple’s share.
Substitutes Affect Market Demand
 |
| iPhone4 VS Galaxy S (Broes, 2011) |
Since the functionality of the products produced by Apple and Samsung are very similar, their products are highly substitutable. By using concepts of demand and supply, the market demands of the product are easily affected by the highly substitutable product in terms of price and other forms of competition. Therefore, in order to lead in the fierce competition and seize the economic revenues, both companies are suing each other to increase one's production cost and increase entry barriers.
Trade-off Between Short-term Revenues & Litigation Costs
The cost of litigation itself can be considered as a fixed cost. However, it causes an extremely large drawback of the high and continuous expenses. Everyone understands that the longer the legal action continues, the larger the litigation cost will be. Simply put, it becomes a high variable costs in the long run. By comparing the loss in litigation and the benefit from reaping market shares in various countries, it is indeed a trade-off between winning the revenue stream in short run under the title of “original” company and the financial loss of litigation costs.
Short ConclusionBased on the economic assumption of maximization, they are both profit companies that would like to maximize their profit in long run and short run. Both companies should really consider the litigation losses compared to the gains of the patent war.
4. INDUSTRY & MARKET
Increasing Market Rivalry
 |
| Market shares trends of iPad (Meghan, 2012) |
Apple tried to recover the glory in 2011 of owning 94.3 % of the market share in 2nd quarter 2010 (Meghan, 2012). While losing market share for iPhone and iPad, Apple shows no willingness to yield even a step to its rival. The most effective way to prevent the uprising rival Samsung continuing to eat up Apple’s share is suing Samsung for violating their design patents. Therefore, the major reason for Apple suing Samsung is so obvious to seize the market shares from rising.
Applying Porter's Five Forces model to analyse the industry, we can conclude that threats of substitutes and the intensity of competitive rivalry is increasing. It is not easy to find a win-win situation to solve this conflict simply because they are fighting solely for the market share and using their own registered patent to prohibit each other from producing similar products.
Short Conclusion |
| Market research from VisionMobile (Liu, 2011) |
According to above statistics from Visionmobile, the global smartphone penetration is only at 27 %. It shows that Apple and Samsung do not dominate the phone market, so the market is actually not fully exploited. There is still a bigger pie waiting for them explore, they should fight for the remaining 73 % instead of the smartphone market share within the 27%.
5. CUSTOMERS
Customer Attachment
From the customer perspective, Apple has earned their customers' trust. This is called brand loyalty. An example what brand loyalty is about, think of iPhone 4. The phone had a signal reception problem. When Apple discovered the problem, the company reacted to the problem quickly and solved the problem by providing free accessory to address the problem. According to an article published in Forbes by Scott Goodson (2011), he explained why Apple’s customer embracing huge loyalty towards Apple.
Firstly, Apple builds relationships with customers and social interaction with customers such as when Apple has new products release, Steve Job, who was the CEO, presents the products to the customers. By bringing his charisma into the equation, the customers feel they are deeply connected with the company brand.
Secondly, Apple shows their passions and visions to their customers. Apple’s mission statement is “Apple is committed to bring the best personal computing experience to students, educators, creative professionals and consumers around the world through its innovation hardware, software and internet offerings”. The passions of Apple ensure the product to reach the highest quality and state-of-the-art-design, and people who purchase Apple's products would believe they own the Apple’s passion. With this emotional connection, Apple’s customers understand the situation and show forgiveness even the product has minor defects, and this is the power of brand loyalty. Therefore, Apple's customers not only purchase the electronic devices but also the passion built within the Apple's brand.
 |
| An Apple Fanboy (Jary, 2011) |
Purpose of the Patent War
Therefore, what are their actual purposes of putting the issue of patent into the court room, in terms of influencing consumer behavior?
One of the purposes is to capture consumers’ perceptions that they are the “original” one. Once either of the rivals are perceived to be the “creative” one, consumers will turn to select them because of their moral thinking of choosing the original one, rather than the copied one. Although in the fast-moving industry of telecommunication, such “perception” may not last long. The actual influence on consumers’ buying behavior does not only occur at the beginning but will last longer than expected.
Short Conclusion
Both parties are building different images to attract consumers' purchases. Despite of similar products, they have their own strengths. Apple is perceived as innovative and creative while Samsung is perceived as having better periphery components and customization. They should further boost their brand to retain the consumers instead of stealing consumers who have completely different preferences. It can only save the cost to serve the fragmented segmentation without a wide range of preference, but also can provide more fitted services to gain more loyal consumers.
6. APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY
Negative emotion affects relationships
Imagine that you are the CEO of Apple and there are new products, that the features and the looks are very similar to Apple's, released by Samsung. It is readily understood that the negative emotion is induced and think of revenging the betrayer arose. Therefore, intuitively, the conflict management approach is switched to competing. The strong relationship between two companies become fragile and worse because of the vicious circle. Therefore, the legal action from both sides not only waste them a lots of money, but also harm their relationship and narrow their cooperation opportunities.
Moreover, the perception of Apple's customers may be affected by the patent war. Not only the negative news harms both the images of Apple and Samsung, but also the news annoy their fans filled with negative scenario. Their loyal customers may be unsatisfied about their aggressive legal actions and not focusing resource to provide better services and publish new products faster.
Short conclusion
Generative Metaphor Intervention Process (GMIP) is designed to re-frame the people from the negative and narrow perception to the appreciative and open views. It is comprise of 4 stages which are (1) journey into metaphor, (2) poeticizing the world, (3) possibility expansion, and (4) return to the original domain. (Barrett & Cooperrider, 1990). Actually, it synergies the principle of metaphor and positive psychology to re-frame the individuals in the group to toward enhancing current situation. With the help of establishing positive metaphor, the inquiry into the similar domain in appreciative nature can reawaken people's view with positive emotion. Therefore, both companies can co-create the opportunities to make better off.
POSSIBLE CONFLICT RESOLUTION SOLUTIONS
To analyze this case from different perspectives can provide a broader view to oversee the existing issues. This might also facilitate finding better solutions. Moreover, it underpins the importance for Apple and Samsung to start to start coming up with more creative solutions by viewing the problems from different angles and to enhance their flexibility in terms of core competences and brand.
To use different perspectives as inputs to come up with some solutions, the generic approaches of conflict resolution solutions can be applied to make both companies emerge as winners.
Expanding the Pie Using the Industry & Market Analysis
To solve the conflict between Samsung and Apple, they should break the existing frame of fighting each other in the patent war. To think of expanding the existing pie, it is crucial to understand what are their interests and existing resources. The Industry & Market analysis shows that there emerge is still a remaining 73 % of unexploited market for other featured phones. Therefore, we should first redirect the focus from the smartphone market to the bigger picture of the whole mobile phone market including featured phones.
Besides, Apple and Samsung should focus their resources on developing countries such as South America, which has only 17 % of the smartphone market share. Furthermore, their economy is booming and their consumption power is growing which provides a huge potential and reasons for Apple and Samsung to fight for.
Besides, Apple and Samsung should focus their resources on developing countries such as South America, which has only 17 % of the smartphone market share. Furthermore, their economy is booming and their consumption power is growing which provides a huge potential and reasons for Apple and Samsung to fight for.
ADR Mindset Breaks False Conflict
According to Thompson (2009), negative emotions might cause companies to believe their interests are incompatible, he refers to this as false conflict. Apple attacked Samsung by suing them because they felt threatened by their similar products, so Samsung instinctively had no choices but to sue Apple to defense itself. Moreover, due to the nature of adversarial in litigation, the patent war easily lead to negative emotions for both companies.
We propose Apple and Samsung use Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) which is a joint venture between both parties and their attorneys. It can be used by introducing third parties as mediators to settle the conflicts (Allison, 1990). With the helps of the mediator, Apple and Samsung can readily take a different approaches by leveraging their understanding of each other's perspectives to solve the conflict.
Samsung and Apple rely on each other to make the magic happened, therefore, both companies should maintain good relationship with each other. It is because Apple is heavily relies on Samsung to supply major parts for its products such as RAM and high quality displays. Samsung is the only company capable to produce these parts in high quantity to cater to Apple's needs.
By using perspective taking (Trötschel, Hüffmeier, Loschelder, Schwartz, & Gollwitzer, 2011) as a tool for negotiation and taking advantage of long term cooperation, they can compromise in sign contracts to form strategic alliances to reestablish the trust relationship. Since there are more opportunities out there, reinforcing their partnership not only fully leverages their existing competence and helps to develop new competences, but also can enjoy new market growth together.
Capitalizing on Identifying Various Differences
To make both companies emerge as winners, understanding and capitalizing on their differences in valuation, expectations, risk attitudes, time preferences and capabilities can help to achieve a win-win situation (Thompson, 2009). Since both companies formerly had good relationships with each other increasing moving parts to come up with integrative agreements might help with this stalemate situation.
Differences in Valuation
Apple and Samsung have their own strategic directions and brand image. Apple focuses on building an innovative and creative brand, so it values the originality with very heavy weight. While Samsung is using its market share and synergy to reduce transaction costs, it aims at improving continuous efficiency by having a coherent production line and diversifying the markets (Lee & Lee, 2007). Therefore, they can reach an agreement that Apple concentrates on the high-end market by selling innovative products, and Samsung focuses on the lower-end market and sign tighter agreements of continuously providing the large amounts of semi-conductors for Apple for sustainable revenue and to lower overall cost by enjoying the economies of scale.
Differences in Risk Attitudes
Apple has invested in innovative products for a long time, thus it can be deemed that it is more likely to risk-taking in new products. On the other hand, Samsung usually acts as the early-follower with lower price product because of its low-cost strategy, so it is more risk-averse. Apple can have an agreement with Samsung on providing the components for Apple with higher priority and ensuring not to join the new markets for a certain time period. Thus, risk-seeking Apple can reap the risk revenues from the new products markets first, while Samsung can enjoy stable advance incomes.
Differences in Capabilities
The comparative advantages of Apple and Samsung are differ a lot because of their resources. Apple is good at designing new products to exploit market while Samsung has gained great bargaining power because it is involved in diverse industries. Therefore, Samsung can cooperate with Apple in other industries, while Apple can make use of Samsung's network to extend the usefulness of its product with products in different industry such as remote printing for printers and projecting to TV.
In terms of their capability to attract consumers, Samsung and Apple each have their own fans and different people have their preferences for different phone systems. Some people are in favor of Android because of flexibility and capability to transfer files between PC smoothly. While other favor Apple's platform because of convenientceand compatibility with other Apple devices.
Therefore, to fully utilize their assets, they should have a clear vision and understand on their target groups. Apple should not run off its track because their customers' loyalty is built on the vision "to bring the best personal computing experience to student, educators, creative professionals and customers". On the other hand, Samsung can capture the sales from people who do not share the same vision as Apple and desire to join the Android family.
Differences in Expectation
Apple's positioning indicates it is looking forward to growth in segments such as high tech, and neat and cyber designs such as black and white. While Samsung targets at segments that desire to have tailor-made products to show personality such as pink smartphones. Therefore, they can further invest and gain revenues from their targeted segments instead of grasping market share from the same segments.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, the patent war can be solved by using the analyses of moving parts between the two parties. Both companies should make package deals to come up with strategic alliances, they can both maximize their strengths when concentrating their efforts in developing new markets and to retain the existing ones instead of wasting resources on fighting with each other. In the current industry and market situation, there are still many other rivals. Therefore companies should collaborate to fully exploit their core competencies and to emerge as industry leaders.
LATEST NEWS
According to the current news (Levine, 2012), Apple and Samsung started taking their first step toward win-win situation by trying to resolve the patent lawsuit. They agreed to have a settlement conference by introducing a San Francisco-based magistrate judge as mediator on 17th April, just like our suggestions of using ADR. The final imminent seems to be come out a resolution in short time.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allison, J. R. (1990, January). Five ways to Keep Dispute Out of Court. Harvard Business Review, 68(1), 166-177. doi:10106402
Amabile, T. M., & Khaire, M. (2008, October 20). Creativity and the Role of the Leader. Harvard Business Review, pp. 101-109. Retrieved from http://pdfcast.org/pdf/creativity-and-the-role-of-the-leader
Broes, D. (2011, September 24). Samsung vs. Apple: And The Winner Is... Retrieved from Forbes.com: http://www.forbes.com/sites/derekbroes/2011/09/24/samsung-vs-apple-and-the-winner-is/
Broes, D. (2011, September 24). Samsung vs. Apple: And The Winner Is... Retrieved from Forbes.com: http://www.forbes.com/sites/derekbroes/2011/09/24/samsung-vs-apple-and-the-winner-is/
Buck, S. (2011, November 24). Apple vs. Samsung The Patent Wars, Explained [INFOGRAPHIC]. Retrieved from Mashable: http://mashable.com/2011/11/23/apple-samsung-patent-wars/
ComiPress. (2007, July 9). ComiPress. Retrieved from A Tradition in Plagiarism: http://comipress.com/article/2007/07/09/2267
Goodson, S. (2011, November 27). Is Brand Loyalty the Core to Apple's Success? Retrieved from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/marketshare/2011/11/27/is-brand-loyalty-the-core-to-apples-success-2/
Gorman, M. (2012, March 14). The Hague to Samsung no injunction for 3G patent infringement if Apple's willing to FRAND license. Retrieved from Engadget: http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/14/the-hague-to-samsung-no-injunction-for-3g-patent-infringement-i
Iphone Active. (2012, January 1). Apple sues Samsung for plagiarism of their Smart Covers. Retrieved from Iphone Active: http://www.iphoneactive.com/2012/01/apple-sues-samsung-for-plagiarism-of.html
iPhone Zone. (2011, December 21). Apple Samsung Complaint For Plagiarism. Retrieved from Apple iPhone iPad iOS App News and Reviews: http://eraofapple.blogspot.com/2011/12/apple-samsung-complaint-for-plagiarism.html#axzz1s3MvDIbs
Jary, S. (2011, January 31). Simon Jary - I know F-all about Apple. Retrieved from Macworld UK: http://www.macworld.co.uk/blogs/?entryid=3258634&blogid=8
Kapetanakis, M. (2011, November 2). The elusive long-tail of mobile shipments. Retrieved from VisionMobile: http://www.visionmobile.com/blog/2011/11/the-elusive-long-tail-of-mobile-shipments/
Karacapilidis, N. (2010). Story Creation Workshop. In N. Karacapilidis, Web-Based Learning Solutions for Communities of Practice: Developing Virtual Environments for Social and Pedagogical Advancement (pp. 80-81). Patras, Greece: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-711-9
Lee, W., & Lee, N. S. (2007, August). Understanding Samsung's Diversification Strategy: The Case of Samsung Motors Inc. Long Range Planning, 40(4-5), 488-504. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2007.06.011
Levine, D. (2012, April 17). US judge sends Apple,
Samsung to settlement talks. Retrieved from Reuters.com:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-apple-samsung-lawsuit-idUSBRE83G19W20120417
Meghan, K. (2012, March 7). The iPad is losing market share. Can the new iPad stop the bleeding? (infographic). Retrieved from VentureBeat: http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/07/ipad-tablet-market/
Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. (2012). http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary. Retrieved April 14, 2012, from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary
Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. (2012, January 31). APPLE V. SAMSUNG: SUMMARY UPDATE - JANUARY 2012. Retrieved from Protecting Designs: http://www.protectingdesigns.com/blog/2012/1/31/apple-v-samsung-summary-update-january-2012.html
O'Brien, K. J. (2012, April 13). Germany: The Place To Go for a Patent Battle. Retrieved from CIO Today: http://www.cio-today.com/news/Germany-Is-the-Place-for-Patent-Fights/story.xhtml?story_id=0310031R8PHI
Reisinger, D. (2012, January 20). Samsung patent lawsuit against Apple struck down in German court. Retrieved from CNET: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57362623-17/samsung-patent-lawsuit-against-apple-struck-down-in-german-court/
Thompson, L. L. (2009). Win-Win Negotiation: Expanding the Pie. In L. L. Thompson, The mind and heart of the negotiator (3 ed., pp. 74-95). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Retrieved from http://lib.cityu.edu.hk/record=b1858063
Tolentino, M. (2012, January 20). Apple’s Latest Patent Win against Samsung, Foxconn Boss Calls Employees “Animals”. Retrieved from SiliconANGLE: http://siliconangle.com/blog/2012/01/20/apples-latest-patent-win-against-samsung-foxconn-boss-calls-employees-animals/
Trötschel, R., Hüffmeier, J., Loschelder, D. D., Schwartz, K., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2011, October). Perspective taking as a means to overcome motivational barriers in negotiations: When putting oneself into the opponent's shoes helps to walk toward agreements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(4), 771-790. doi:10.1037/a0023801
Wen, C., & May. (2011, April 27). 蘋果與三星互告事件觀察. Retrieved from 科技產業資訊室: http://cdnet.stpi.org.tw/techroom/pclass/2011/pclass_11_A116.htm
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (2012, April 13). Toy Story. Retrieved from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_story
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (2012, April 15). Apple Inc. Retrieved from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (2012, April 16). Intellectual property. Retrieved from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (2012, April 8). Samsung Electronics. Retrieved from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Electronics
Yang, J. (2012, January 6). Samsung Quarterly Profit Rises as Galaxy Phones Lure Consumers From Apple. Retrieved from Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-05/samsung-profit-beat-estimates-as-galaxy-phones-lure-consumers-from-apple.html
百度百科吧. (2012, April 1). 苹果股份有限公司. Retrieved from 百度: http://baike.baidu.com/view/15181.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.