The next twist in the Apple vs Samsung battle

US ITC rules that Apple infringed on Samsung patent rights.

 

The Samsung vs. Apple battle took another twist yesterday when the US International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled that Apple had infringed on Samsung patent rights.

This could mean a ban on the sale of certain Apple products in the US. Fortunately for Apple this ban would only relate to older models, most notably the iPhone 4 and the Ipad 2.

"We believe the ITC's final determination has confirmed Apple's history of free-riding on Samsung's technological innovations", a Samsung statement said.

Apple has already announced that they will appeal the ITC ruling. The ITC’s ban is also subject to review by the US President. The president can overturn it on public policy grounds, though this is considered unlikely. Apple can continue selling the devices during this review period which lasts up to 60 days.

The worldwide smart phone market is believed to be worth over $290bn. Although Apple dominated the market in 2012, Samsung outsold Apple by 2 to 1 in the first 3 months of 2013.  This shows that a shift may be occurring.

Samsung of course uses the Google Android system which is becoming more popular all the time. According to research firm Gartner, Android accounted for 66 per cent of global smart phone users in 2012, compared to 4 per cent in 2009, whilst Apple’s iOS operating system accounted for 19 per cent of the market in 2012, compared to 14 per cent in 2009.

Apple’s iOS system is of course only available from Apple products whereas Android is used by multiple brands including Samsung, Sony and HTC. Android can also be uploaded onto other devices including: laptops, netbooks, smartbooks, smart TVs, smart watches and cameras.

Notably, major tablet providers such as Google Nexus and Amazon also use Android. According to research form IDC, Apple accounted for 40 per cent of worldwide tablet sales in the first quarter of 2013, compared to 58 per cent in the first quarter of 2012. Android, on the other hand, had increased its market share from 39 per cent to 57 per cent over this same period.

Photograph: Getty Images

Andrew Amoils is a writer for WealthInsight

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What Jeremy Corbyn gets right about the single market

Technically, you can be outside the EU but inside the single market. Philosophically, you're still in the EU. 

I’ve been trying to work out what bothers me about the response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview on the Andrew Marr programme.

What bothers me about Corbyn’s interview is obvious: the use of the phrase “wholesale importation” to describe people coming from Eastern Europe to the United Kingdom makes them sound like boxes of sugar rather than people. Adding to that, by suggesting that this “importation” had “destroy[ed] conditions”, rather than laying the blame on Britain’s under-enforced and under-regulated labour market, his words were more appropriate to a politician who believes that immigrants are objects to be scapegoated, not people to be served. (Though perhaps that is appropriate for the leader of the Labour Party if recent history is any guide.)

But I’m bothered, too, by the reaction to another part of his interview, in which the Labour leader said that Britain must leave the single market as it leaves the European Union. The response to this, which is technically correct, has been to attack Corbyn as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are members of the single market but not the European Union.

In my view, leaving the single market will make Britain poorer in the short and long term, will immediately render much of Labour’s 2017 manifesto moot and will, in the long run, be a far bigger victory for right-wing politics than any mere election. Corbyn’s view, that the benefits of freeing a British government from the rules of the single market will outweigh the costs, doesn’t seem very likely to me. So why do I feel so uneasy about the claim that you can be a member of the single market and not the European Union?

I think it’s because the difficult truth is that these countries are, de facto, in the European Union in any meaningful sense. By any estimation, the three pillars of Britain’s “Out” vote were, firstly, control over Britain’s borders, aka the end of the free movement of people, secondly, more money for the public realm aka £350m a week for the NHS, and thirdly control over Britain’s own laws. It’s hard to see how, if the United Kingdom continues to be subject to the free movement of people, continues to pay large sums towards the European Union, and continues to have its laws set elsewhere, we have “honoured the referendum result”.

None of which changes my view that leaving the single market would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. But retaining Britain’s single market membership starts with making the argument for single market membership, not hiding behind rhetorical tricks about whether or not single market membership was on the ballot last June, when it quite clearly was. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.