Apple and Samsung Fail to Reach Deal Over Patent Issues in Recent Mediation Meeting

Discussion in 'iOS Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Feb 14, 2014.

  1. macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001

    Last month, it was reported that Apple CEO Tim Cook and Samsung Electronics CEO Oh-Hyun Kwon agreed to attend a mediation session on or before February 19 ahead of a second patent infringement lawsuit between the two companies set for next month. Now, ZDNet Korea [Google Translate] (via The Verge) is reporting that both companies met in the United States last week but failed to reach an agreement in their ongoing legal battle.

    The report notes that Cook met with Samsung mobile division chief J.K. Shin to discuss a possible settlement, but did not make any significant progress towards a deal. Korean newspaper Choshun [Google Translate] states that Shin was originally expected to fly out to the United States next week before the court-imposed deadline on the meeting, but now has no plans to do so, indicating that the session has already taken place.

    In late December, The Korea Times reported the two companies had resumed settlement talks in their ongoing negotiations over their patent-infringement dispute, as Samsung executive Shin Jong-Kyun was expected to meet with Cook. Previously, the Apple CEO met with former Samsung CEO Choi Gee-Sung in 2012 to discuss the subject, but talks fell through because Samsung would not accept Apple's demand for patent royalties. The two companies also met last year in Seoul, Korea but discussions failed to progress.

    Notably, Shin was quoted in November 2012 as saying that Samsung has "no such intention" in settling with Apple over patent issues, as HTC and Apple announced that they had reached a global settlement on their patent dispute earlier that month.

    The second patent infringement lawsuit between Apple and Samsung is set to begin on March 31, as Apple's Chief of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller will be among the witnesses. Samsung will only have four patents claims to bring to the upcoming trial, as Judge Koh invalidated two of its patent claims last month.

    Article Link: Apple and Samsung Fail to Reach Deal Over Patent Issues in Recent Mediation Meeting
  2. macrumors regular

    Jan 2, 2013
    St Helens, Merseyside, England
  3. macrumors 65816

    Apr 22, 2008
  4. macrumors 68040


    Apr 18, 2011
  5. macrumors 6502a


    Jul 12, 2012
    Woah! Move aside "The Young and the Restless" :D
  6. macrumors 68020

    Oct 14, 2011
    Next week on "As the Apple Turns: the Battle Against Samsung"...
  7. macrumors 601


    Sep 15, 2011
    Vilano Beach, FL
  8. macrumors 68000

    Cuban Missles

    Dec 6, 2012
    My heart is in Camagüey, the rest in the USA
    After losing a BILLION dollar case, that Samsung says they have no intention on settling, seems strange. Talk about a distortion field.
  9. macrumors demi-god


    Jun 9, 2007
    Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 24+.
    Well, there's not much of an historical incentive:

    • Nokia gets cross license to some of Apple's patents.
    • HTC pays for license to all of Apple's patents.
    • Samsung and Apple refuse to settle with each other.

    Which companies are doing best?
  10. macrumors 6502


    Oct 26, 2010
    That is not guaranteed though... I believe judge also lowered 1B amount.

    I do not know how much does Apple want loyalty from its patents, I am sure that Samsung might feel to expensive for them in long run. They might as well just pay the 1B or whatever it might be.
  11. macrumors member

    Aug 10, 2010
    Miami, FL
    Since Samsung continues to be intransigent, take them back to court, bend them over and...well, you get the picture.

    I really think that at this point, Samsung is just trying to save face. I believe that at this point, they think that if they settle, they'll be seen as having an even larger defeat - go figure - than losing in court. At least if they go to court, they have a CHANCE of getting away scot-free, though that appears highly unlikely.
  12. M-O
    macrumors 6502a


    Mar 15, 2011
    I'd bet that paying out court settlements is cheaper than paying patent royalties.
  13. macrumors 68000

    Apr 23, 2009
    I imagine the conversation going like this:

    Apple- we can forget the blatant iPhone copying if you promise not to copy our new products coming out this year.

    Samsung- you know we can't make that promise.

    Discussion over.
  14. macrumors 6502a


    Jun 9, 2009
  15. macrumors 6502a


    Aug 21, 2013
    Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
    It is obviously Apple has win every case outside of USA...
  16. macrumors 6502a


    Jun 21, 2011
    Settling is for shameful weaklings. Samsung is the great warrior and will vanquish his foes with courage and ferocity....or pay out another billion or so.
  17. macrumors 68000

    Cuban Missles

    Dec 6, 2012
    My heart is in Camagüey, the rest in the USA
    I assume that the payout is for damages done. Wouldn't the court then still force Samsung to pay royalties for pattens that are upheld in the future? So instead of negotiating they are betting that the court will give them a better deal? That's what I mean -- I would prefer to negotiate and control the price versus having it set by someone else where I will probably pay more (given the track record they have in court).


    As stated before, paying out, I think is for past infraction. Going forward they will likely still be forced to pay royalties if the court upholds the patents.
  18. macrumors 6502


    Feb 8, 2013
    New York
    Samsung won't agree to the anti-cloning agreement, aka copying apple products
  19. macrumors 6502a

    Mar 24, 2010
    Samsung can't do that. Where else would they copy that next big idea?
  20. macrumors 68000

    Jun 24, 2010
    I agree with Samsung. My Note 3 has nothing in common with the iPhone. It's why I went from a Note 2 to a iPhone 5s and back to the Note 3. I started having the shakes and blurred vision with the 5s. Doctor told me that small screens will do that.
  21. macrumors 6502

    Jul 25, 2012
    That would be like shutting down your R&D department... it's just crazy!
  22. BC2009, Feb 14, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2014

    macrumors 68000


    Jul 1, 2009
    She's not the best, but she has a better understanding of intellectual property law than Alsup does. Alsup is a brilliant guy, but his ruling in the Oracle v Google case regarding copyright of API's was flat-out wrong.

    As a software developer, I can tell you that developing an API is not just about naming functions and parameters. You have to come up with complex object hierarchies that keep implementation private while exposing functionality. This means having to spend most of the time designing class hierarchies of objects as well as functions that take those objects and what kinds of types are returned. Often the actual implementation is the part that is not worth protecting because the implementation is trivial.

    Case-and-point.... BSD sockets have been able to do multiplexing for decades. It is a well known technique by which you can do a non-busy wait for data on multiple sockets on a single thread and then get a wakeup to process the data when data arrives on one or more of those sockets. The first design of failed to take this into account and required that those waiting for data on multiple sockets do a busy wait with polling or use one thread per socket which is not feasible in the case where you have over 50 sockets with which you are communicating (i.e.: it would require 50 threads). Java redesigned the API in Java 1.4 with a great new API called java.nio. The new API has a great object hierarchy and better return values and parameters which allows Java to expose multiplexing within the virtual machine. The implementation was trivial, but the API is what required some rethinking because the old BSD API's were not at all object oriented and the Java architects came up with something that was.

    For Google to be allowed to copy this wholesale (class names, function names, parameter names, return types, class/interface hierarchy) without penalty is ridiculous. It shows that Alsup has little understanding of where the intellectual investment goes in software even though he says he learned to program in Java to prepare himself for this case.

    Protecting the implementation of something with copyright is kinda dumb. The only implementations worth protecting can already be protected with patents. Copyright is the correct mechanism to protect an API from wholesale copying. It would mean that Google would have at least had to change the names or some part of what they did. They wouldn't be barred completely from using Oracle's ideas, but they could not wholesale copy it. Much like a songwriter can come up with a tune that is similar but not identical to another. Wholesale copying of an API should be a violation of copyright law and I am hoping Alsup's ruling gets overturned through appeal sooner rather than later.

    At the very least, Google should have had to change class names and function names even if they were allowed to copy the object inheritance (though I think they should have to at least differ by some percentage there as well).

    UPDATE: Replaced "Posner" with "Alsup" above. Thanks to kdarling for spotting my brain fart.
  23. macrumors 6502

    Jul 18, 2013
    Can you tell me what did Samsung copied for their Galaxy S4 and Note 3?

    Seems to me that you think everything Samsung ever created were copied from Apple...
  24. macrumors 6502a

    Aug 1, 2011
    You being a software developer makes you more qualified to interpret the law than a Judge?
  25. macrumors 6502a

    Mar 24, 2010
    You mean after Apple have established the smart phone and tablet for the industry, than they innovate from there. Than you are correct.

Share This Page