Samsung Sues Apple for Copying Android Notifications

[SomeDudeAsking]

Samsung Sues Apple in Korea over iOS Notifications Feature

According to BrightWire, a business-to-business resource for portfolio managers, the Korean online news site iNews24 is reported today that "Samsung Electronics has brought a lawsuit against Apple in a court in South Korea over its 'Notification Center' patent infringement." No other details were made available at this time.

The delay in launching the lawsuit may have been due to Google's patent pending notification patents not being officially granted. However, that changed last month when one of their notification patents was indeed granted under the title "Priority inbox notifications and synchronization for mobile-messaging application." This may have been enough for Samsung to get the lawsuit rolling.

One of Google's key patents on this matter that was filed under the names of Google engineers titled "Notification of Mobile Device Events," is still pending.

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patentl...s-feature.html

It's payback time for all the bully lawsuits you made against Android manufacturers, Apple. Your bad karma is coming back to bite you. I hope Samsung and Google will bring this lawsuit worldwide and force Apple to use alert boxes again for all iOS notifications.

[Yujenisis]

Originally Posted by SomeDudeAsking

Samsung Sues Apple in Korea over iOS Notifications Feature



http://www.patentlyapple.com/patentl...s-feature.html

It's payback time for all the bully lawsuits you made against Android manufacturers, Apple. Your bad karma is coming back to bite you. I hope Samsung and Google will bring this lawsuit worldwide and force Apple to use alert boxes again for all iOS notifications.

What is the goal of this proxy war via Samsung? If these are Google patents, why isn't Google suing Apple?

I wonder what they're playing at...

[SomeDudeAsking]

Originally Posted by Yujenisis

What is the goal of this proxy war via Samsung? If these are Google patents, why isn't Google suing Apple?

I wonder what they're playing at...

The goal is revenge and it's Korea so that's probably why Samsung is doing the suing for Google there.

[Bahroo]

How are they suing Apple if thats not even their technology...its Google's technology

[SomeDudeAsking]

Originally Posted by Bahroo

How are they suing Apple if thats not even their technology...its Google's technology

It's probably something to doing with being part of the Android Alliance.

[Yujenisis]

Originally Posted by SomeDudeAsking

The goal is revenge and it's Korea so that's probably why Samsung is doing the suing for Google there.

Ah, so you suspect they may be attempting to leverage their favored status (or brazen corruption depending on whom you speak to), that Samsung clearly enjoys in their home country.

Say what you will of Apple's lawsuits, but it looks like Samsung/Google are playing Apple's game - only dirtier...between this and the abuse of FRAND patents they are certainly not making themselves out to be 'the good guys'.

[blackhand1001]

Originally Posted by Yujenisis

Ah, so you suspect they may be attempting to leverage their favored status (or brazen corruption depending on whom you speak to), that Samsung clearly enjoys in their home country.

Say what you will of Apple's lawsuits, but it looks like Samsung/Google are playing Apple's game - only dirtier...between this and the abuse of FRAND patents they are certainly not making themselves out to be 'the good guys'.

How is it dirtier, atleast google notification patent actually reflects something they actually invented and isn't mega broad like apples patents. Apple is the one that went on the offensive. All of the lawsuits filed by android manufacturers against them have been to get leverage on Apple to make them back down and settle with reasonable terms and not outrageous ones like 30 dollars per device. In fact most of apples key patents are now being invalidated.

[SomeDudeAsking]

Originally Posted by Yujenisis

Ah, so you suspect they may be attempting to leverage their favored status (or brazen corruption depending on whom you speak to), that Samsung clearly enjoys in their home country.

Say what you will of Apple's lawsuits, but it looks like Samsung/Google are playing Apple's game - only dirtier...between this and the abuse of FRAND patents they are certainly not making themselves out to be 'the good guys'.

Dirtier than Apple's rounded corners? I don't think so.

[Brazuca]

Ha. The most corrupt company in tech files a lawsuit in the country it owns, with judges it owns, using a patent it doesn't own...

Justice!!

[dotme]

Originally Posted by SomeDudeAsking

It's payback time for all the bully lawsuits you made against Android manufacturers, Apple.

A lawsuit to defent intellectual property isn't bullying. It's protecting R&D investments. It's logical, not emotional.

[irDigital0l]

Surely Apple could make notification center...because it sucks.

[SomeDudeAsking]

Originally Posted by Brazuca

Ha. The most corrupt company in tech files a lawsuit in the country it owns, with judges it owns, using a patent it doesn't own...

Justice!!

Which means we may actually get swift justice with competent judges unlike what happens for Apple lawsuits in the USA with frivolous invalidated patents.

[Yujenisis]

Originally Posted by SomeDudeAsking

Dirtier than Apple's rounded corners? I don't think so.

I'm not going to give this argument any time after this, as clearly you are here to troll. But for the purposes of those interested in this topic I'll bite.

Apple's patent claims against Samsung, Motorola, et al are their own inventions and are legally granted patents.

Apple is completely within their rights, legally and morally, to use the legal system to redress their complaints of illegal use patents. Any "dirtiness" you perceive, is because of Apple's refusal to license, and instead force their competition to find alternatives. If you have issue with anything more than this your problem is with the broken patent system that says everything Apple is doing is fine.

You anti-Apple folks should really have issue with U.S Patent law, and specifically the USPTO itself. Understandably, following Apple's legal aggression there is a lot of scrutiny within the USPTO to review Apple's existing patents. Even as someone who likes Apple, I think this is a good thing, as I don't think most patents are given due diligence to investigate "prior art" or "obviousness". We can expect more than a few of Apple's patents will be declared invalid and this is probably a good thing.

Now why is Google's side being more "dirty"? Well, I'm guessing your world view won't accept facts in this area because it's complex and goes against your belief that Apple is somehow the villain (Hint: the villain is the broken pay-to-play patent system):

Apple's patents are all mushy "look and feel" and "experiential", both of which can easily be designed around by competitors even if the patents themselves are questionable (again the problem is with the patent system that granted the damn patents in the first place).

FRAND patents aren't like "normal" patents that Apple is using. Their enforcement is strictly controlled because they are essential to standards-based technology. Samsung, Motorola, etc offered their patents to the entire industry in good faith in order to make them standards-essential patents. In return for accepting them as standards, the competition asked that FRAND patents be offered in a "fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory" fashion. Everyone agreed and the industry accepted their technology, standardized it, and licensed it in good faith. This is how all of our crap works together and is fundamental and essential part of innovation.

What you have now, is a renegade company like Samsung, desperate for anything against Apple, trying and failing to use their FRAND patents against Apple in a discriminatory way. So far they are being slammed down every time, and even being investigated by the U.S and EU, because to allow Samsung to proceed with FRAND cases against Apple, threatens the whole industry and has a chilling effect on innovation on a fundamental level that Apple's touchy-feelie patents (questionable though they are) cannot touch.

Apple's patents can always be declared invalid, and if not, competition can design around them. On the other hand, if Samsung succeeds in utilizing their FRAND patents against Apple it threatens the legal basis for companies to share their intellectual property in a manner fundamental to the advancement of technology.

I'm an abashed obsessive reader of http://www.fosspatents.com which is utterly fantastic if you find the broken patent system as interesting as I do.

----------

Originally Posted by blackhand1001

How is it dirtier, atleast google notification patent actually reflects something they actually invented and isn't mega broad like apples patents. Apple is the one that went on the offensive. All of the lawsuits filed by android manufacturers against them have been to get leverage on Apple to make them back down and settle with reasonable terms and not outrageous ones like 30 dollars per device. In fact most of apples key patents are now being invalidated.

Tell me, is "mega broad" a legal term since you are apparently such an expert on Apple's patent portfolio?

Apple has plenty of famously ridiculous patents, but even more that are incredibly specific.

[SomeDudeAsking]

Apple stealing the Android notification system has nothing to do with FRAND patents. The Android notification system is not a FRAND patent. Apple can go back to using popup alerts that take over your whole screen.

And you've warped the meaning of FRAND. FRAND does not mean that you can just willy nilly use someone else's FRAND patent. You have to negotiate and license it just like any other patent. Apple is using all these FRAND patents from Samsung and Motorola without even having a license or evening paying anything. Apple is stealing. It is in Samsung's every right to seek an injunction against Apple for refusing to pay.

[cyks]

Originally Posted by SomeDudeAsking

And you've warped the meaning of FRAND. FRAND does not mean that you can just willy nilly use someone else's FRAND patent. You have to negotiate and license it just like any other patent. Apple is using all these FRAND patents from Samsung and Motorola without even having a license or evening paying anything. Apple is stealing. It is in Samsung's every right to seek an injunction against Apple for refusing to pay.

In each case brought against them, Apple has stated that they're willing to pay the same licensing fees that everyone else pays, but, instead, Samsung has either denied licensing altogether or requested absurdly high fees...completely against everything that FRAND is.

[zbarvian]

They had this coming. They hired the dude who came up with the brilliant WebOS notifications and the best they could give us was a crappy Android rip-off.

[SomeDudeAsking]

Originally Posted by cyks

In each case brought against them, Apple has stated that they're willing to pay the same licensing fees that everyone else pays, but, instead, Samsung has either denied licensing altogether or requested absurdly high fees...completely against everything that FRAND is.

Absurdly high fees like the $30+ Apple wants for every Samsung phone for just a few measly patents that are being invalidated? FRAND doesn't mean you pay the exact same amount everyone pays. You pay a percentage that has to be negotiated and Apple plainly stated in it's court case that it refuses to pay anything more than $1 and the judge told Apple to get lost.

[cyks]

Originally Posted by SomeDudeAsking

Absurdly high fees like the $30+ Apple wants for every Samsung phone for just a few measly patents that are being invalidated? FRAND doesn't mean you pay the exact same amount everyone pays. You pay a percentage that has to be negotiated and Apple plainly stated in it's court case that it refuses to pay anything more than $1 and the judge told Apple to get lost.

Apple's patents aren't FRAND so Apple has the right to charge whatever they see fit. If a company doesn't want to, they are free to find their own solution to the problem.

Yes, different companies can pay different amounts under FRAND due to quantities or other licensing deals, but, due to the 'nondiscriminatory' part, a company can not charge it's competitors more than it would charge it's allies in a similar situation.

[BaldiMac]

For anyone that cares, the primary claim in this patent is about displaying notifications for "important" messages and not displaying notifications for other messages. They are apparently going after Apple's VIP feature in the Mail app.

Of course, I've been doing the same thing for a decade or so. Not sure what's original here.

[BlueParadox]

Originally Posted by Yujenisis

I'm not going to give this argument any time after this, as clearly you are here to troll. But for the purposes of those interested in this topic I'll bite.

Apple's patent claims against Samsung, Motorola, et al are their own inventions and are legally granted patents.

Apple is completely within their rights, legally and morally, to use the legal system to redress their complaints of illegal use patents. Any "dirtiness" you perceive, is because of Apple's refusal to license, and instead force their competition to find alternatives. If you have issue with anything more than this your problem is with the broken patent system that says everything Apple is doing is fine.

You anti-Apple folks should really have issue with U.S Patent law, and specifically the USPTO itself. Understandably, following Apple's legal aggression there is a lot of scrutiny within the USPTO to review Apple's existing patents. Even as someone who likes Apple, I think this is a good thing, as I don't think most patents are given due diligence to investigate "prior art" or "obviousness". We can expect more than a few of Apple's patents will be declared invalid and this is probably a good thing.

Now why is Google's side being more "dirty"? Well, I'm guessing your world view won't accept facts in this area because it's complex and goes against your belief that Apple is somehow the villain (Hint: the villain is the broken pay-to-play patent system):

Apple's patents are all mushy "look and feel" and "experiential", both of which can easily be designed around by competitors even if the patents themselves are questionable (again the problem is with the patent system that granted the damn patents in the first place).

FRAND patents aren't like "normal" patents that Apple is using. Their enforcement is strictly controlled because they are essential to standards-based technology. Samsung, Motorola, etc offered their patents to the entire industry in good faith in order to make them standards-essential patents. In return for accepting them as standards, the competition asked that FRAND patents be offered in a "fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory" fashion. Everyone agreed and the industry accepted their technology, standardized it, and licensed it in good faith. This is how all of our crap works together and is fundamental and essential part of innovation.

What you have now, is a renegade company like Samsung, desperate for anything against Apple, trying and failing to use their FRAND patents against Apple in a discriminatory way. So far they are being slammed down every time, and even being investigated by the U.S and EU, because to allow Samsung to proceed with FRAND cases against Apple, threatens the whole industry and has a chilling effect on innovation on a fundamental level that Apple's touchy-feelie patents (questionable though they are) cannot touch.

Apple's patents can always be declared invalid, and if not, competition can design around them. On the other hand, if Samsung succeeds in utilizing their FRAND patents against Apple it threatens the legal basis for companies to share their intellectual property in a manner fundamental to the advancement of technology.

I'm an abashed obsessive reader of http://www.fosspatents.com which is utterly fantastic if you find the broken patent system as interesting as I do.

----------



Tell me, is "mega broad" a legal term since you are apparently such an expert on Apple's patent portfolio?

Apple has plenty of famously ridiculous patents, but even more that are incredibly specific.

Well said, Yujenisis. And completely agree with you: this SomeDudAsking is simply trolling, and clearly has no idea what they're talking about. Trolls gotta troll!

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by cyks

In each case brought against them, Apple has stated that they're willing to pay the same licensing fees that everyone else pays, but, instead, Samsung has either denied licensing altogether or requested absurdly high fees...completely against everything that FRAND is.

Actually, Apple never stated that they want to pay what everyone else pays, quite the contrary. They tried exhaustion through deals with 3rd party chip manufacturers and they even tried to ask a judge to set a tarif, but no more than 1$ per device. This got their case swiftly thrown out of court if you remember (and yes, this was in the us0.

They also tried to argue that royalties should be a percentage on a per-part basis and not per device (as other players pay) and have refused cross-licensing which other players offer.

Quite the contrary, Apple has done everything but agree to pay the same thing other players do.

----------

Originally Posted by cyks

Apple's patents aren't FRAND so Apple has the right to charge whatever they see fit. If a company doesn't want to, they are free to find their own solution to the problem.

Yes, different companies can pay different amounts under FRAND due to quantities or other licensing deals, but, due to the 'nondiscriminatory' part, a company can not charge it's competitors more than it would charge it's allies in a similar situation.

Non discriminatory only means that you can't refuse licensing, not that you can't charge more. That would be the "Fair and reasonable" part.

The problem is Apple is fighting the FRAND licensing all together, trying to argue exhaustion through the acquisition of the parts (basically, trying to ride out Qualcomm's or Broadcom's license rather than get one of their own).

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

They also tried to argue that royalties should be a percentage on a per-part basis and not per device (as other players pay)

This seems reasonable to me. If Apple has a more expensive device, the have to pay more than their competitors. If you build LTE into a house or car, should you have to pay a percentage of the whole value of these items? (Yes, this is an exaggerated example to make a point.)

[bembol]

I love both and I get why Apple filed all those lawsuits. I really believe if Apple didn't release the iPhone companies like Samsung, hTc will be copying/following RIM and their QWERTY design. Back in the day before the iPhone, I thought Sony Ericsson's W series was the best. LOL

I was surprised Google/Samsung took this long to fire back. Notification IMO is THE MOST AMAZING feature on Super Phones today.

[Brazuca]

Originally Posted by BlueParadox

Well said, Yujenisis. And completely agree with you: this SomeDudAsking is simply trolling, and clearly has no idea what they're talking about. Trolls gotta troll!

Took that picture in Argentina, in hope to use it someday....

----------

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

Actually, Apple never stated that they want to pay what everyone else pays, quite the contrary. They tried exhaustion through deals with 3rd party chip manufacturers and ...

Patent exhaustion is a very desirable feature of the system. If Qualcomm has licensed some Samsung patents in the chip it sells to manufacturers, and if that license permits Qualcomm to do so, the license is transferred to the manufacturer who is using the chip.

Qualcomm will have paid the license fee per chip, and passed the cost on to the manufacturer. So that Samsung already got paid. Makes perfect sense.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by Brazuca

Patent exhaustion is a very desirable feature of the system. If Qualcomm has licensed some Samsung patents in the chip it sells to manufacturers, and if that license permits Qualcomm to do so, the license is transferred to the manufacturer who is using the chip.

Qualcomm will have paid the license fee per chip, and passed the cost on to the manufacturer. So that Samsung already got paid. Makes perfect sense.

It does, except that Samsung stated that their licensing to Qualcomm was not transferable. Also, it doesn't make perfect sense in scenarios where you have chips that implement multiple standards.

Are you really going to pay a licensing fee for radio protocols you're not going to be using ? No, if it's disabled on the chip, your device doesn't infringe and you don't need a license. So instead of paying a flat "license everything in the chip", Qualcomm sells chips without patent licenses and you get only those you need for the hardware you'll be using.