Thinking about the fight Apple has picked with Samsung. These things usually end with some kind of cross licensing of patents.

Samsung as a company has a much more diverse line of products compared to Apple.

So I'm wondering, what is it, Apple wants in the way of patents. TV comes to mind.
Samsung must have a passel of em.

According to information from the trial, Apple already made a totally disingenuous licensing offer to Samsung in 2010 - $40 per tablet and $30 per handset. 20% discount if Samsung were to cross-license their own patents to Apple.

While I have no love for Samsung and agree that pretty much every Korean company designs their products like they're working with a photocopier, I also think all technology and process patents are complete nonsense. I'm not sure what angle Apple is playing here - at least insofar as it applies to the long game.

I do think Apple has a trade-dress claim, but in general I'd like to see software patents go into the toilet across-the-board and across-the-world.

That said, while they exist, Samsung is doomed in this case, IMO. Their own documents pretty much kill any defense they can possibly hope to put up going forward.

For once we agree, Bruno

I want all this stupid software patent stuff to disappear. Copyright seems like a perfectly suitable alternative, and would still nab Samsung for using identical icons for their stuff here.

In a patent case, there are at least three different battles going on, and they're largely orthogonal. It's important to keep this all in mind.

- Patent infringement/invalidity. This is where it begins. This is the basis on which a court might find a party guilty. I've done a bunch of expert witness consulting in this arena.

- Damages. There are typically a whole separate set of experts that start with the *presumption* of patent infringement and try to work out a proper royalty payment.

- People being stupid. Lawyers love to go fishing though old emails, because inevitably there's somebody writing something dumb ("make it more like the competition" or "we'll kill them!") that makes one of the parties look like a bad actor, and might help sway a jury. This can also, in some cases, lead to charges of "willful infringement", which has an impact on the magnitude of the damages.

Apple v. Samsung is a microcosm of all of these things. What I can't offer is an opinion on how well either side is doing. What we're hearing and seeing is typically just a fraction of the behind-the-scenes-action.

Very smart way to look at this whole Samsung/Apple fight. I don't know of course if this is the case, but indeed the time Apple is taking to pull out the iTV is way too long, in my view, and, possibly, the reason is what you suspect.

iTV is a instant winner, in my view - and I say this knowing that, as it usually happens to me with most Apple products, I would personally probably end up disliking them -. But I think they would sell millions, just for the fact that a TV sits in your living room and look, style, and status sybolism all play such an important role there. And, come on, apps on your TV, browsing the internet, the huge eco system, controlling the thing with your iPhone (I mean, even the remote control would turn into an attractive piece of technology)... Who would not like that?!
There would still be a small % of people like me who would prefer a HTPC in the living room, but, leaving us aside, if Apple released a range of iTVs in the Fall, they'd sell millions all over the world by Xmas time. I've been expecting to see the iTV since always. It seems to me a no brainer choice. And yet...

Of course, I may be wrong, but I think your idea very well would explain why there's no Apple 46" thing hanging on people's living rooms yet.

And actually, after using Windows 8 on my HTPC for a while, Metro/Modern/Whatever UI is so absolutely good there, that I can't believe Apple is waiting for MS to take that market by leveraging the XBox + smartglass as a strategic advantage.