The thing to remember is that Samsung is a huge conglomerate that has many different sub-division/companies.
Samsung Semiconductor is different and separate from Samsung Telecommunications. They are all under an umbrella corporation named Samsung Electronics, and that is owned by the Samsung Group. Samsung also does ship-building (Samsung Heavy Industries), engineering, and life insurances ... ;-)
Some of these companies are getting so big that it is almost becoming possible for one division or child company to sue another child company...
I don't think that Samsung Heavy Industries is losing sleep over Apple suing Samsung Telecommunications. And it would be in the best interest of Samsung to keep their telecommunications company and semiconductor company as far apart in terms of technology so that other companies would still be willing to come to them to manufacture their parts without having to worry about Samsung putting those parts in their own devices.
Samsung also does ship-building (Samsung Heavy Industries), engineering, and life insurances
You forgot manufactures cars and airplanes and constructs apartment buildings, runs a theme park more popular than Epcot center and Disney/MGM owns some department stores, makes clothes ...among many others ;)
All of Samsung earned ~$206 billion in revenue in 2010 (more than 3x Apple's) and have about 6x the number of employees. Just Samsung Electronics has an estimated market cap of around $250billion.
I thought part of the current discussion was "Well, if Apple is giving Samsung grief over selling the Galaxy Tab, Samsung should make life difficult for Apple component-wise." Say if a part was magically "unavailable" for a week or two.
It's hard to tell who has who over a barrel at the moment. At Apple's volumes, can they change suppliers quickly? Can Samsung afford to piss off Apple just to get the Galaxy Tab back on the market?
You appear to be assuming there are no clauses regarding unforeseen production difficulties, associated supply problems, and penalties in said contract.
Thanks to HN, there's a few comments worth reading. The comments on the Economist site were woefully ignorant of the tech industry. Seemed like a bunch of kids with their first-year business textbook in hand and trying to sound intelligent.
You were modded down for some reason, but wow, you weren't kidding, having read some of those comments. I didn't expect to encounter a clique of barking morons in that particular context. If that's what the majority of the Economist's subscriber demographic looks like nowadays, it's not a good thing for the rest of us.
Dunno about the rest of the world, but I don't think US courts, at least on the federal level, will accept a lawsuit between two companies under the same controlling ownership. IIRC, it violates the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution's "case or controversy" clause.
Comments
The thing to remember is that Samsung is a huge conglomerate that has many different sub-division/companies.
Samsung Semiconductor is different and separate from Samsung Telecommunications. They are all under an umbrella corporation named Samsung Electronics, and that is owned by the Samsung Group. Samsung also does ship-building (Samsung Heavy Industries), engineering, and life insurances ... ;-)
Some of these companies are getting so big that it is almost becoming possible for one division or child company to sue another child company...
I don't think that Samsung Heavy Industries is losing sleep over Apple suing Samsung Telecommunications. And it would be in the best interest of Samsung to keep their telecommunications company and semiconductor company as far apart in terms of technology so that other companies would still be willing to come to them to manufacture their parts without having to worry about Samsung putting those parts in their own devices.
Samsung also does ship-building (Samsung Heavy Industries), engineering, and life insurances
You forgot manufactures cars and airplanes and constructs apartment buildings, runs a theme park more popular than Epcot center and Disney/MGM owns some department stores, makes clothes ...among many others ;)
All of Samsung earned ~$206 billion in revenue in 2010 (more than 3x Apple's) and have about 6x the number of employees. Just Samsung Electronics has an estimated market cap of around $250billion.
My favorite part is that Samsung also builds liquid natural gas tankers (yes, those huge 50,000 horsepower vessels)
I thought part of the current discussion was "Well, if Apple is giving Samsung grief over selling the Galaxy Tab, Samsung should make life difficult for Apple component-wise." Say if a part was magically "unavailable" for a week or two.
It's hard to tell who has who over a barrel at the moment. At Apple's volumes, can they change suppliers quickly? Can Samsung afford to piss off Apple just to get the Galaxy Tab back on the market?
They would have to imply to Apple that the part would be available if the tab went back on the market. That's extortion!
Wasn't the A4/A5 chip fabbed by Samsung? Apple doesn't have a chipmaking plant...yet. There's one part that's Apple-only.
And Samsung wouldn't have to imply anything. They could just make life harder for the iPad supply chain.
Breach of contract would just make it bad for Samsung Semiconductor, because I don't believe that Apple would leave that up to chance ...
You appear to be assuming there are no clauses regarding unforeseen production difficulties, associated supply problems, and penalties in said contract.
Is it illegal?
How is this different from deal making in general?
ie If you give me this then I'll give you that?
It's the negative you can't do. If you give me this, I'll give you that is fine. IF you DONT give me this, <x> is extortion.
Ah, I didn't know that.
Makes sense.
> Say if a part was magically "unavailable" for a week or two.
I doubt the courts would see a blatant breach of contract as "magical".
Thanks to HN, there's a few comments worth reading. The comments on the Economist site were woefully ignorant of the tech industry. Seemed like a bunch of kids with their first-year business textbook in hand and trying to sound intelligent.
You were modded down for some reason, but wow, you weren't kidding, having read some of those comments. I didn't expect to encounter a clique of barking morons in that particular context. If that's what the majority of the Economist's subscriber demographic looks like nowadays, it's not a good thing for the rest of us.
Dunno about the rest of the world, but I don't think US courts, at least on the federal level, will accept a lawsuit between two companies under the same controlling ownership. IIRC, it violates the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution's "case or controversy" clause.