Patents just being granted that were applications at the time of the iPhone release would seem to offer the most potential for Apple.
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.
Apple Seeking $2.5 Billion from Samsung in U.S. Patent and Design Infringement Trial
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Patents just being granted that were applications at the time of the iPhone release would seem to offer the most potential for Apple.
I never know all the facts about these kind of things (as does no one else) since I am not a high up at any of these companies. The most fun out of all of this in someways, or most interesting thing is the absolute HATRED people have for apple at sites like the linked one and even here. If the world was based only on net opinions then you would think they would be in worse shape than Sony is.
Goes to show the net is a very, very, vocal minority and you can ignore it all the way if you are a company. I wouldn't personally if I was a CEO but just saying I find it kind of funny.
Hell of a lot of google juice on the chin of people though,I don't know how horse mouth Page and CO pulled that off, they should get some kind of an award for making the net love them with such passion. MS seems to have a neutral view for the most part.
Observation is all. None of this will stop anything from selling, and no one is becoming a monopoly. 1st world country problems FTW.
I when I got my first smart phone it was a HTC tilt with windows CE. I got it while looking at getting the first iPhone. The sales man at AT&T said get this phone it's the same price and it has a better camera, gps, third party apps, 3G and faster processor. I took it back after 2 weeks because it was a piece of ****. The screen was unresponsive to finger input, the camera would stutter, the battery sucked. It was a pain in the ass to get applications. I got the iPhone after that and it was amazing. So fluid and easy to use. Text messages were all on the same screen like an instant messenger. There were no menus or complicated settings. One button. Yes it was revolutionary
One, Florian Mueller is a known Oracle-sponsored Android troll (thanks, SEC) and all of his comments are suspect.
Two, Apple is being an ass with its damages claim. There is absolutely nothing reasonable about $2.5B for design infringements. If I were the CEO of Samsung I'd simply break every component supplier contract with Apple, to hell with breach of contract provisions. Losing $12B of contracts won't mean much, but watching Apple scramble for alternatives in the wake of component shortages and inability to fulfill consumer demand for its products is a dish best served cold.
Two, Apple is being an ass with its damages claim. There is absolutely nothing reasonable about $2.5B for design infringements. If I were the CEO of Samsung I'd simply break every component supplier contract with Apple, to hell with breach of contract provisions. Losing $12B of contracts won't mean much, but watching Apple scramble for alternatives in the wake of component shortages and inability to fulfill consumer demand for its products is a dish best served cold.
Yes! Especially if a kid makes the light bulb in his basement shortly after Thomas Edison created the light bulb, he should be able to reap profits too, despite Edisons years of research and failed attempts.
Pretty apt comparison, considering Edison wasn't the first to create the lightbulb. He just improved upon previous designs and marketed himself as the inventor.
Those ridiculous valuations should give people a clue as to how silly Apple's position is in this whole patent lawsuit fiasco is. They want 2 dollars per unit for trivial patents. Need I say more? Like those patents are even close to that value when you consider all the work that goes into a smartphone, both making the hardware, and writing the software. And whats up with that one patent Apple thinks is worth $24? Really? Their argument that Samsung gained 2 billion dollars off of those silly patents is plain stupid. People bought Samsung for many reason: price, value, hardware specs, android, etc. And not for any of Apple's trivial patents. Silly Apple. I hope they get whats coming.
And that's why you're no executive. Ever heard the term Business is Business? It would still be in Samsungs best interest to continue to engage in business contracts with one of the biggest company's on the market. Leave your emotions out of business decisions.
This is why I think this Nuclear war on patents is going to hurt Apple most.
Jobs made it personal. He made the decision to go full tilt after everyone purely out of spite and not necessarily wise business.
he was an apt business man, but in his litigation happy "destroy everyone else" mode, I think he might have made a huge mistake.
I think you missed that I was talking about the importance of the patent system. An example:
Brilliant man has idea for an invention and invents the lightning rod which protected buildings and ships from lightning damage. A savvy cherry picker steals brilliant mans invention and makes fortune. (Ben Franklin-As brilliant man)
Brilliant man invents the light bulb, you know, for light. Another savvy cherry picker steals brilliant mans invention and makes a fortune. (Thomas Edison, this time)
Noticing a trend?
Now, brilliant man decides he is no longer going to put his time, effort, and resources into making inventions because he cannot profit from them. (No matter what anyone tells you, everyone is guided by Adam Smiths Invisible Hand). Therefore, the utility (economists way of measuring satisfaction/happiness) of society as a whole plummets. If you decide to become an inventor and create ideas, it is the responsibility of the inventor to patent, track, and maintain confidentiality of his intellectual property.
Well german courts are the east Texas patent courts of the EU. Also they have not gone to full trail yet.
I think what I actually had was the HTC Tilt! I'm not 100% sure, but it was the top of the line HTC Windows mobile phone at the time. And your salesman was right, it WAS able to run 3rd party apps - which the iPhone could NOT - this was a HUGE deal. It also was 3G, had a much better camera than the iPhone that did NOT stutter, did have GPS, more RAM, a faster processor, etc. The battery did NOT suck, and you could change the battery. I forget the internal storage but I believe I could get a 8GB microSD card at the time when iPhone was only 4GB. (I'm not sure it could have been 16GB vs 8GB iPhone, but it was more). I had that phone for 2 years through the first iPhone. The finger input was not as good as the phone but was acceptable. You could also use a stylus which I didn't mind.
The 3rd party apps ALONE made this better than the iPhone. I used it as an eReader, internet radio streamer, played games, all kind of reference and entertainment apps, etc - whereas the iPhone was just a phone with a music player not large enough to store many songs in. And even though the iPhone browser was better than the HTC one, it was SO SLOW that it made it fairly useless. The iPhone looked cooler and had much superior marketing and existing fan base, so it blew away the HTC sales wise and took over the market. In that sense, it revolutionized the smart phone market by making it mainstream, but the iPhone 1 was NOT a better phone, period.
I agree wholeheartedly at Jobs' s statement being emotional, but the direction the company is taking with its legal proceedings is not solely in existence because of a former CEO's emotional statement. You can get emotional on making the right business decision as much as a bad business decision.
Last edited:
First of all Samsung doesnt own all the 3G patents, there are a total of over 100 that make up the 3G standard, Samsung owns a couple of them. Motorola has the majority, Samsung is 4th or 5th on the list. All of the owners agreed to treat the patents as FRAND in order for the patents to be part of the 3G standard. Samsung sells a part with all the royalty rights (everyones) for about $1, on the other hand they believe because Apple isnt using their part for the iPhone/iPad that Apple should pay a royalty (to them for just their patents) of 2.4% on the total cost of the device which means they want $6 - $20 a unit depending on how much flash (8, 16, 32, 64) Apple installs, despite 3G not knowing or carrying about how much flash is installed in the device. They also want it based on list price (ie what Walmart) sells it for, not the price that Apple sells it to Walmart, etc at. Its very similar to the lawsuit that Microsoft is currently involved in where several companies want royalties based on the cost of the computer Windows 7 is installed in, not the money Microsoft is actually paid for the OS all to use FRAND patents.
If Samsung were asking for $1 a unit (that they sell the part for) or even $5 a unit, thats one thing, but deciding that because its apple, you can charge a percentage of the total cost of the device instead of the cost of the part that you sell to people with the rights, is silly and against the entire FRAND process.
So society doesn't benefit from individual ambition? Think of how many individual start-ups have happened in the past ten years.
Why continue to do business when your customer is suing your pants off in what is essentially forcing you to admit defeat?
What "business is business"? This is an all-out war, and $2.5B is entirely unreasonable even from a B2B standpoint. This isn't a "settlement" anymore.
There si more to it. There's a reason why there are hundreds of variations of the ideals and ideologies behind the many different forms of government and economic systems.
Innovation has, and will be a mixture of reasons. Some people do it for the money. No doubt. Some do it for personal growth, some for "feeling good", some because they believe they are bettering society and human kind.
to make some blanket statement that all mankinds advancements are the curtesy of greed and the mighty dollar is pure ignorance and leans way to heavily on the exclusivity of one ideology.
Anyone defending Apple is clearly a fan boy. You can't have both. Either Apple copied other phones to make the iPhone or these patients were obvious. Pretty much everything in the iPhone was done before. Apple's only real first was to successfully market a smart phone and make it a must have. You can't patent the idea of it working better you can only patent the way you made it work better. Also anyone saying it's in their right because it's the law is also dumb. A stupid law does not make something right.if the law was you could shoot puppies for chewing your slippers I'm pretty sure you wouldn't say I don't like it but I stand by your choice of puppy murder since its fine by the law.
Whether they drop or continue the contracts, Apples' legal proceedings against Samsung don't go anywhere. Samsung is not the only manufacturer for the parts Samsung is contracted to make. You would just be dropping 12 Billion dollars in revenue and whatever penalty that accompanies the breach in contract.
You're argument is based upon the assumption that Apple actually invented something that required copious amounts of time, effort and money to create. Rather, I see most of their patents as an extension to already established methods, or natural evolutions to previous designs.
We'll use kdarling's example of tap to zoom. It's been seen previously. Might even already have a patent existing for it. So what Apple does is take that basic idea, adds an extra step, which allows an already zoomed screen to recenter where you tap. It's a logical progression of the base idea, and probably didn't take the programmers at Apple much effort to think up and implement the idea.
The fact Apple patented this and and as many other similarly small features that they could get away with doesn't show me that they're trying to protect their hard earned IP, rather they're being cheap cheesy bastards.
It's like adding a twist of lemon to tomato sauce, patenting the idea of adding lemon, then turning around and suing a bunch of restaurants that sell spaghetti.
That's not what I said. I said everyone in society benefits from the Invisible hand. I did not say it was dependent.
A single chip foundry costs far more than $12B when you have to not only keep up with demand, but keep up with yearly process improvements. $12B is nothing to Samsung.
Apple needs Samsung. Samsung doesn't need Apple.
When is the last time Samsung needed a critical hardware component from Apple to build its own competing products? See the huge power disparity here? I'm afraid you don't, because you're still cheerleading for Apple.
You are not winning.
----------
No, I call BS on that statement. You're just trying to change the subject.
Samsung only charges a percentage of the net sale value to Apple? It is asking a percentage of the total net value of the device against FRAND?
You must be an IP expert, can you pouint where do you have seen the things you claim?
I've come to realize all these arguments we've been having over the last couple of patent threads come down to two viewpoints.
Viewpoint A: Apple spent time and effort creating their products, and have the right to sue others to protect their IP.
Viewpoint B: Apple has taken an absolute ton of ideas previously seen in the market, tweaked them, polished them, and were granted a patent for these tweaks. Now they're suing companies over patents that shouldn't have been patented in the first place specifically to weld against their competitors in the market.
A has a point. Everyone has the right to earn and protect their inventions. But viewpoint B sees it as Apple spamming the patent office with every thing they can throw at it in an attempt to see what sticks so they can curtail the competition.
Which one's right? Well...that's what we're here to talk about.
Viewpoint A: Apple spent time and effort creating their products, and have the right to sue others to protect their IP.
Viewpoint B: Apple has taken an absolute ton of ideas previously seen in the market, tweaked them, polished them, and were granted a patent for these tweaks. Now they're suing companies over patents that shouldn't have been patented in the first place specifically to weld against their competitors in the market.
A has a point. Everyone has the right to earn and protect their inventions. But viewpoint B sees it as Apple spamming the patent office with every thing they can throw at it in an attempt to see what sticks so they can curtail the competition.
Which one's right? Well...that's what we're here to talk about.