Explore publications.

This article seeks to explore the conflict between Samsung and Apple. The conflict has been one of the most outstanding patent wars in the history of the smartphone industry. Apple and Samsung are among the most popular manufacturers of commonly used smartphones and tablets. The conflict began when Apple decided to file a federal lawsuit in the US district court, accusing Samsung of copying some of its iPhone features in the Samsung Galaxy S II smartphone. The court ascertained that the gadget had similar characteristics to Apple, thus ordering Samsung to pay Apple for the damages. In response, Samsung reacted by filing countersuits. The two firms, almost fifty cases in different nations and regions. The issues lasted for seven years, starting from 2011 and ending in 2016, in which both companies benefited and lost at the same time. The conflict emanated because of each firm pursuing its competitive advantage in the market. Apart from following market shares, third parties, like consumers, instigated the conflict, with international politics and the media playing a role.

Following the Arab Spring in 2011, Yemen’s devastating conflicts have deepened even further, leading the country to be the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. Despite the international community's multiple attempts to resolve this conflict, the conflict seems to have reached a stalemate. To make matters worse, resolving the conflict is made difficult by the large number of parties involved, internally and externally, and by the complex, dual and fluid nature of the relationships they share. Although the media and international community's focus is directed towards the binary conflict between the Hadi government and Saudi Arabia on one side and Iran and the Houthis on the other, the conflict is greatly multifaceted and far from being binary. This paper critically analyzes and explores other participating actors to comprehend the root causes of the conflict entirely. Although this conflict has been advertised as a proxy war, while others trace back the motivation to sectarianism, this paper argues how this analysis can be misleading and hindering the peace process.