decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Hmmm | 311 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Hmmm
Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 10:20 AM EDT
I note that the international trade agreements do not include forcing a
manufacturer to sell one of its components to another company. For instance, is
there a law, even in the US, that forces a company with a trade secret to make
that trade secret available to a competitor? Pass the Coke, please.

Samsung might be contracted to sell a certain number of Retina displays to Apple
at the moment, but I'm sure when the contract ends or Apple want the latest and
greatest components in their iThing, they will have to go elsewhere.

Even if that component happens to have round corners.

I'm sure even Judge Koh will have a problem forcing a South Korean company to
supply their state of the art components to any US company in general and to
Apple in particular.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Hmmm - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 11:30 AM EDT
Apple is a US company - Samsung isn't
Authored by: PJ on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 12:33 PM EDT
Just a minor point, but Samsung does have a US
presence too, as you can see in the header of
all the filings.

In New York, they're pretty active not just as
an employer but in "good works".

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple is a US company - Samsung isn't
Authored by: symbolset on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 09:58 PM EDT

Multinational conglomerates have no nationality. That includes Apple and Samsung. The only exception is nationally owned ones. Most of the work Apple generates occurs in China, and due to the vagaries of international finance their profits wind up overseas too.

Samsung employs people in the US too, and they generate US jobs in the form of the million or so who make a good living shifting their ware.

Not to tar either one, but it's become harder to "buy local" when things come to be made in the place with the optimal efficiencies.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )