Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Samsung to Seek Ban on iPhone 4S Sales in France and Italy
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're correct. But whether or not they will retain those patents or royalties to them is another story.
Volvo owns the patent to seat belts, but doesn't collect royalties.
Jesus, not this crap again.PDMI, different things called the same, etc... etc..
lol
Same old argument. Ignores all of it except for one photo. Grow up man.
That is true. No Samsung products for me any more. Samsung is crooked as they come. Just look at how they packaged their tablet near identical to the iPad. No thought, no creativity just make it look like Apple's products and packaging and then they act as if they're the victim ... **** Samsung.
Legal fees will be peanuts compared to how much it would cost to buy samsung. Samsung is a giant. Far bigger than Apple.
this is getting absolutely ********* insane. I understand the need to protect ones company IP and designs, but for christ sake, Apple should just buy samsung and stop all this madness.
Samsung's policy is like China. Copy everything now, worry later. Great images
More like the Android policy in general.
No surprise here. They're grasping at straws for anything which might give them a better negotiating position with Apple.
I seem to recall in an Apple lawsuit answer them stating they set aside funds for licensing FRAND technologies on the presumption they will have to pay out when the suit is settled or ordered.
There IIRC were two categories of "accounts", one which is a contingent liability which is pre-funded but only paid on settlement or order, and one which is a presumed liability which is pre-funded and paid whenever that portion of the dispute is arrived at by a judge or settlement, even if other issues are pending.
They use this as a show of good faith to garner sympathy with the court on all issues and to show to the opposition party they really and truly do want to settle.
The non-FRAND issues are what causes the friction between the parties because technologies basic to operation of all styles of devices are one thing, but functions such as a particular look and feel or a particular sub-function of a particular phone are specific to a company and keeping that exclusive is a differentiator between brands, not a basic operating mechanism. Those are not FRAND.
The areas where that seems to cross are in things such as touch gestures which are the basic operation of a touch device, but inventions of a particular company for a particular device or firm such as that finger company Apple bought out.
The thing that strengthens their case on such matters is the fact that before the iPad, most devices and patents focused on better ways to mouse and pen, not so much ways to shake, bake, and finger.
I wonder if FRAND is a court precedent or simply a debate point?
Samsung's market cap is bigger than Apple. They are in a different country. HTC is also larger than Apple and has a P/E ratio closer to 10 than 16, so is not a takeover target. Samsung is a valued and leading edge supplier with capacity Apple needs and Samsung needs a large customer like Apple.
These are all tactical moves and the only reason Apple is getting more traction in court is because Samsung copied Apple far more than the other way around.
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/13394255/
Rocketman
There IIRC were two categories of "accounts", one which is a contingent liability which is pre-funded but only paid on settlement or order, and one which is a presumed liability which is pre-funded and paid whenever that portion of the dispute is arrived at by a judge or settlement, even if other issues are pending.
They use this as a show of good faith to garner sympathy with the court on all issues and to show to the opposition party they really and truly do want to settle.
The non-FRAND issues are what causes the friction between the parties because technologies basic to operation of all styles of devices are one thing, but functions such as a particular look and feel or a particular sub-function of a particular phone are specific to a company and keeping that exclusive is a differentiator between brands, not a basic operating mechanism. Those are not FRAND.
The areas where that seems to cross are in things such as touch gestures which are the basic operation of a touch device, but inventions of a particular company for a particular device or firm such as that finger company Apple bought out.
The thing that strengthens their case on such matters is the fact that before the iPad, most devices and patents focused on better ways to mouse and pen, not so much ways to shake, bake, and finger.
I wonder if FRAND is a court precedent or simply a debate point?
Samsung's market cap is bigger than Apple. They are in a different country. HTC is also larger than Apple and has a P/E ratio closer to 10 than 16, so is not a takeover target. Samsung is a valued and leading edge supplier with capacity Apple needs and Samsung needs a large customer like Apple.
These are all tactical moves and the only reason Apple is getting more traction in court is because Samsung copied Apple far more than the other way around.
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/13394255/
Rocketman
Maybe this is why apple didn't come out with the 5. What's the court going to do? Allow the iPhone 4 to be sold? But not the 4s? They look the same. Just different processor. Lol.. This could have been a genius move...
Funny you should say that. Since Apple is going on one sue-happy adventure, you can replace Samsung with Apple in your sentence and it will still hold true.
Oh well, what goes around comes around.
Ignores all?
PDMI connector, icons in a wall prior to the Samsung stand, microphone icon used before Apple used it, a standard charger, Apple didn't invent this packaging where you see the product just opening the case.
This is about radio and communication patents, not trade-dress and looks.
The iPhone 4S has changed their entire radio sub-system, it's not a single chip CDMA/GSM solution. Some of Samsung's patents might cover the newer system in the iPhone 4S but not the iPhone 4.
Samsung is simply trying to get revenge. But their stuff DOES look like Apple's. From USB cables, to chargers, to the method of boxing the device. To the outer looks of the packaging, to the UI, to the device design... All very similar, and Apple designed this stuff first... Samsung copied. Plain and simple.
![samsung-vs-apple-copying.jpg]()
Last edited:
I don't think this will be good for Samsung. I mean, if some Samsung tablet is banned no one really cares about that, but if the iPhone is banned, people will notice and want to know who is responsible for that. They will be "the company that stole our iPhones". Wouldn't be too smart.
