Apple Seeking $2.5 Billion from Samsung in U.S. Patent and Design Infringement Trial

[LordVic]

The argument that Apple, in not licensing it's patents (forget about whether you consider them valid patents in the first place because that's not Apple's issue, but the patent system's issue) is stifling competition suggests to me that what Apple patented is the only way to do something. Is that correct? Did they really get such an incredible thing created and patented that there is just no possible way to innovate beyond what Apple has protected?

What Apple has done / is doing, should in effect be forcing other companies to innovate. If you forget about "how things have been done in the past" - sharing (meant as selling) technology to your competitors doesn't make this the best way to do things. Or the only way to do things. Or the wrong way to do things.

In the case of the wheel example - perhaps what those people trying to compete with Apple's now owned invention of the wheel should have been working towards is a way to move rocks without a wheel. People focused too much attention on one particular technology that they forget that there are always other ways to do things - often times better than the so called best product to date.

I just don't believe that Apple's figured out the holy grail of tech regardless of what their patents are. Is the iPhone a great product or the iPad or MacBook Air? Sure, but that doesn't mean it ends there. The idea that Apple will stop innovating because they control the market is the same argument that was made about Wal-Mart and their "low prices". Do you remember hearing, if we let Wal-Mart go uncontrolled in the market (any market) they'll force competitors out of business then raise prices because they won't have any competition. Last I checked, Wal-Mart still has low prices for comparable products and they still have competition.

I'd argue that it's the competitors of Apple who are not innovating that have the most to worry about.

I'm an idealist

I think there's a line. not all of apples patents are bogus. I'm not one of those "all or nothing" people.

And i admitted my analogy was far fetched

But sometimes, there's something someone brings to the table that truly is the simplest, Best way of accomplishing a task. Or that there are no other reasonable means of doing so.

an example of a patent i think is legit: Slide to unlock. Apple didn't patent unlocking a phone. Just the gesture of a simple slide. There are hundreds if not thousands of ways of unlocking devices, from hardware means, to other touch sensitive means. This is a patent i'm not against.

An example of a patent that I think is bogus: A Rectangular screen face with minimalist design on a tablet computer. There are only so many ways to dress up a rectangular screen in a minimalist fashion on a tablet. Once you go too simple of a design / invention, in which there's virtually no other means in which to accomplish said task, You shouldn't be able to patent it.

Are you going to tell every single company out there they need to invent a different shaped screen? or they're not allowed to make a simplified front face of their tablet? Despite existing "art" existing for that exact same look?


How about the "using NFC to check in at an airport" Patent recently awarded to apple. Which apple never claimed to patent any of the technology involved in accomplishing this task. Just the task itself. With NFC being invented to do such a thing, Awarding a patent for one of it's intended uses to ac company completely removed from the actual inventing of the technology itself.

THe problem i have is that Apple doesn't care. Apple clearly wants a monopoly in the field. instead of discussions with the competition. They've gone for the throat from the start. Injunction is the #1 request apple puts in on every single lawsuit. Then they throw in Hundreds of patents and hoping just one sticks.

if it was happening on one or two things, I'd say ok, fair. But Apple submitted patents for over 200 different items on the iPhone.

Think about that. 200 individual "tasks", "Technologies", "procedures" on one device.

And apple won't' share a single one with anyone else, even if they want to pay. And anyone using Any of is taken to court and threatened with injunctions. Never mind the fact that of those 200 patents, Many of which weren't apples own inventions. But things that had been accepted as "standard" and never patented.

I don't blame apple 100% for this. The patent system is the biggest problem. But I do not for a second think that apples behaviour is being done to spur on innovation, and is in fact being used as a tool to block innovation by everyone else.

----------

Wonder if they're going to use their sudden drop off in sales in Q3 to claim Samsung's infringement caused them to sell 35% less units :




Samsung announces their results for their Q2 the 27th, I guess we'll know by then if the rumors are true :

Samsung smartphone sales smashed Apple in Q2 according to estimates

Of course, that predicted 30 million iPhones, 4 million more than what Apple sold. Did Samsung manage to double Apple's smartphone sales ? That would more than explain Apple's ferocious attacks in the court rooms in the last years. Did they basically see this coming, Samsung rising to the top spot, taking it away from Nokia ?

when Samsung announces their earnings and they see that the phones have made them insane amounts of moolah, you will have two sides of the argument

Apple: Their stolen technologies allowed them to steal our sales by making competing products with our inventions.

Samsung: The fact we have constantly come out with more products, product lines, and better and faster technology on a more consistent basis has helped us pass the iPhone's sales, which haven't had any revision in 294 days, and a major revision since 2010.

Now when I look at those two sides to the story, I' know there's a middle ground. But to me, What seems more likely? Samsung using "slide to unlock" stole 2.5 billion from Apple, Or apple not actually releasing a new iPhone since 2010?

 

[pacalis]

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.

First, Samsung isn't doing anything uncommon. The vast majority of license agreements charge royalties on gross sales. This is mostly done because sales are regularly audited.

But you're unwittingly twisting your logic to fit your bias. You begin with a percentage argument when it goes against Samsung (small percentage of patents), and then move to a unit argument when it goes for Apple (smaller cost per unit). But the answer is obvious from your post - if Apple had a choice between a $1 part and a $6 license they should have bought the $1 part .

 

[KnightWRX]

Now when I look at those two sides to the story, I' know there's a middle ground. But to me, What seems more likely? Samsung using "slide to unlock" stole 2.5 billion from Apple, Or apple not actually releasing a new iPhone since 2010?

Frankly, seeing all Apple has on Samsung is small fry patent claims, I really doubt that is what caused them to lose over 35% of their units sales Q to Q from April to today.

But really, last year, they managed to increased their units sales from Q2 to Q3, up by 8.3%, with the same 294 days old phone, however last year had an extra catch : People were expecting the new iPhone in June. This year, people pretty much knew it wasn't coming until fall by all probabilities. This makes their performance particularly surprising.

I really wonder if competition is catching up and if Apple is suffering from a bit of inertia. iOS 4, iOS 5 and now iOS 6 seem to be catch up releases (bringing features others have to iOS rather than bringing new features others will eventually get), the hardware is more and more just "me too!" stuff (dual core SoC, high resolution screen, better cameras, all things competitors managed to ship ahead of Apple).

Is Siri and Maps really their trump cards ? Is iCloud ? Considering Apple never really shined at online services and that's where they seem to be headed, that could be a dangerous road to take the company. It'll be interesting to see what is ahead, if this was just the inevitable "so-so" quarter for them (the numbers are still very good don't get me wrong) and they'll be right back to where they have been for the last 10 years in Q4 or if they really are starting to stagnate.

 

[LordVic]

knight,

ts' exactly what i feel looking at apple right now. Especially the iPhone department.

The iPhone you buy today, is essentially identical to the iPhone from last year. and not much different in reality than that from 2 years ago

the iPhone 4 to 4s was not a dramatic leapfrog in technology. It brought some new features, But most were software based. If you weren't going to get an iPhone 4, the 4s wasn't necessarily going to sell you.

iOS itself has started to feel dated. the OS itself isn't all that advanced. Multitasking as added peace meal by "cheating" to catch up to competition. (even the Blackberries on their ancient OS was doing multitasking better).

Notifications came well after the rest of the market (RIM and Android had it in place first)

iOS as a core platform is nothing more than a launcher. It's the app ecosystem that truly Sells the iPhone. "there's an app for that" for just about everything, But how much did the OS truly do?

Meanwhile, from Samsung's perspective: in the last 2 years, we have seen A plethora of Different handhelds, Each one adding more hardware and software features. Looking at the Galaxy line alone, from launch of the S in 2010 to the S III this year (same timeframee as iPhone 4 to 4s). Each one not only brought different hardware upgrades, from single, to dual to quad core. From .5mp camera's to 8, along with features such as replaceable batteries, SD card expansion, LTE blah blah blah blah blah..... but each one also looked different from each other, distinguishing them as individual products.

THis is samsung alone. Now when you factor in that it's not just samsung in competition. RIM (despite failing), HTC, Nokia, Microsoft... the list goes on. Each attempting to do what Samsung is doing with constantly bringing forth new tech as fast as possible.

android has seen itself go from 2.x to 3.x to unifying under 4.1 in nearly the identical time frame

Apple meanwhile is still sitting on the iphone4 base design and platform.

There's another company that did this same thing. Same platform. Same hardware concepts with few revisions while everyone past them. Their name is Researhc in Motion, and they're not doing so well now.

The Difference being, RIM hasn't tried to shut down everyone else's products through litigation (though, maybe it would have saved them)

 

[ChrisTX]

The ugly truth is that not even Steve Jobs himself can say with ANY certainty what the mobile phone market would look like now without Apple. It's all conjecture and a reality that can never take place or be proven/dis proven.

Unless time travel becomes possible.

And Steve was notorious for considering everyone but him "lazy." When he uses the word - it becomes meaningless.

Yeah, but there was nothing in the pipeline from any of the companies I mentioned that suggested they were going in the same direction Apple went. I mean look how long it has taken most of these companies to catch up. Palm went bankrupt, Nokia finally just gave up and adopted Windows Phone, and RIM still has no clue what they're doing with BB10. Conjecture or not my theory is a fairly reasonable and likely scenario.

 

[A MacBook lover]

The iPhone you buy today, is essentially identical to the iPhone from last year. and not much different in reality than that from 2 years ago

Apple is still sitting on the iphone4 base design and platform.

He has a point, android/samsung has made leaps since the first android device.

Oh that's because it looked like crap

 

[apolloa]

I can't wait for this to start, because it will be one bloody battle, Google has joined up with Samsung and will go out of their way to invalidate some of these patents, because the evidence exists Apple didn't invent them.

Say what you want, but Apple will not be winning all of this one, and I think it will damage them further.

But alas, perhaps they could stop with the iToys and make a new Mac Pro? But obviously the company is far too busy suing the competition to add such trivial features as USB 3 and Thunderbolt....

----------

Yeah, but there was nothing in the pipeline from any of the companies I mentioned that suggested they were going in the same direction Apple went. I mean look how long it has taken most of these companies to catch up. Palm went bankrupt, Nokia finally just gave up and adopted Windows Phone, and RIM still has no clue what they're doing with BB10. Conjecture or not my theory is a fairly reasonable and likely scenario.

So what is Android then? And did you totally forget about Palm and WebOS? I'm pretty sure the Palm Pre and Web OS was in development long before the first iPhone appeared.

 

[smoledman]

I can't wait for this to start, because it will be one bloody battle, Google has joined up with Samsung and will go out of their way to invalidate some of these patents, because the evidence exists Apple didn't invent them.

Say what you want, but Apple will not be winning all of this one, and I think it will damage them further.

But alas, perhaps they could stop with the iToys and make a new Mac Pro? But obviously the company is far too busy suing the competition to add such trivial features as USB 3 and Thunderbolt....

----------



So what is Android then? And did you totally forget about Palm and WebOS? I'm pretty sure the Palm Pre and Web OS was in development long before the first iPhone appeared.

You do realize that Apple's R&D continues full steam ahead while the legal department does their own thing?

 

[skunnykart]

He has a point, android/samsung has made leaps since the first android device.
ImageImage
ImageImage



Oh that's because it looked like crap

I wouldn't call the design of the iphone revolutionary but rather the product of "evolution".

If you have a close look at the design of tech devices from early 2000s to the release of the first iphone you will see clearly that the iphone was only just a few ticks away from what was already out there.

The iphone borrows elements from many of the PDA plus Phone hybrid devices that flooded the market in the early 2000s.

In particular, have a look at some of O2 XDA devices.

The user interface also isn't really all that different from what Palm had on their PDAs.

What is different and "revolutionary" is replacing the stylus with the finger. Yes Apple bought the patents from Fingerworks but Apple were the first to implement it on a smart phone and were smart/evil enough to buy out the company that owned patents for it.

Give credit where it is due. Yes for apple getting rid of the styus, but no to the exterior design or the look of the UI.

 

[apolloa]

You do realize that Apple's R&D continues full steam ahead while the legal department does their own thing?

Sure, now try and tell all those waiting for new mac Pros that one.... the are obviously far too busy with iToy's (Not that I personally mind as I want an iPhone 5) to give the mac pro USB 3 or Thunderbolt.
You do realise Apple's top of the range halo machine is the most expensive, and the only one in the range to lack Thunderbolt?

 

[nia820]

Apple is getting out of hand with these law suits. They are threaten by samsung. I know tins of people who are switching to galaxy phones. Galaxy s 3 is a masterpeice.

Apples technology isn't innovative. They just package and advertise their products to look like it is. I own quite a few apple products but I don't believe they are heaven sent.

And i find it hilarious that majority of retina screens for ipad is made by sasumsung.

 

[kdarling]

What is different and "revolutionary" is replacing the stylus with the finger. Yes Apple bought the patents from Fingerworks but Apple were the first to implement it on a smart phone and were smart/evil enough to buy out the company that owned patents for it.

The Fingerworks patents had nothing to do with the iPhone.

OTOH, at least one of the guys who had owned Fingerworks did do some work on it.

 

[tkwolf]

I just think that these patent wars are getting too much. Every month the same companies are suing each other. Its like a monthly show now, it should have its own reality series on mtv

 

[skunnykart]

The Fingerworks patents had nothing to do with the iPhone.

OTOH, at least one of the guys who had owned Fingerworks did do some work on it.

Did Apple buy Fingerworks for something other than their capacitive multi touch technology which has nothing to do with the iPhone? So does that mean Apple did not buy Siri for their voice technology and if Apple ever succeeds in buying out Dropbox, their tech will have nothing to do with iCloud?

Wow, I didn't know that.

 

[Renzatic]

The Fingerworks stuff, I think, has more to do with the touchpad on their laptops than the touchscreens on the iDevices.

 

[gaximus]

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 wasn't saying that the sales man was wrong, it did have better specs. But despite that, it was a less user friendly phone. Which in my opinion and others made it a better phone. The tilt wasn't easy to do anything. I had a hp compaq before that and was very proficient with it, and CE. But the iPhone was a different kind of phone, one that was easy for anyone to use it. that's what made it revolutionary. And first iPhone was a huge hit either, it wasn't until the 3G came out $300 cheaper that start to sell like crazy. Back to the main point, if it wasn't for the iPhone. Smart phones would still be running CE or something similar where if you wanted to scroll, you had to get out the stylus, and hold the slider bar and drag it. Touching the screen to scroll, without selecting an item and scrolling was a big deal.

And the camera on the tilt did suck. In low light it would stutter. It was the main reason I got the iPhone.

 

[leethecam]

Tap to zoom

Didn't Adobe come up with click to zoom (or tap to zoom if you had a touch sensitive surface) with their first incarnation of Lightroom. (2006)

Of course they already had a similar zoom option in Photoshop as well, but that wasn't activated by a single click - you needed to chose zoom to enable it so let's not count that...

Tap to zoom wasn't invented by Apple and it's ludicrous to suggest that they should own the rights to the concept. What next... a patent that details finger operation of a small electronic device to do stuff...?

And if memory serves - wasn't the first laptop that resembles the current form developed by someone not in the Apple camp. Apple didn't mind "borrowing" that concept just a little. Just as well everyone has use of the Qwerty keyboard or typists worldwide would be in trouble. The world needs similar functions to drive similar devices - just like how if I turn a steering wheel to the right it makes my car go that way. I'm sure the fanboys would prefer Apple to own the concept of remote communication and electrical technology but some things should not be exclusive - particularly when those moaning about it didn't come up with the concept themselves...

 

[sonyisawesome]

It's safe to say apple is acting like a scummy company.

I can't believe this.

Keep bawwing apple. You ain't getting that money.

 

[skunnykart]

The Fingerworks stuff, I think, has more to do with the touchpad on their laptops than the touchscreens on the iDevices.

So you are saying that the capacitive multi-touch technology that fingerworks developed has nothing to do with the capacitive multi-touch screen in the iPhone?

 

[Worf]

No the first iPhone wasn't revolutionary. It didn't even runs 3rd party apps, for heaven's sake. The only thing different was multi-touch. I had a touch based Windows CE based phone at the time that ran circles around it. It's just that Apple made smartphones POPULAR because of the core fanatical fanbase.

They need to stop these ridiculous lawsuits.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with being the Invention of the Year in 2007 by Time Magazine. Of course people didn't at the time know it would be named as such, but several consumers including me thought it was a revolution. One worth paying a hefty price for. People didn't wait for days on end for it just because they were fans of Apple, they were fans of the product.

Also using your logic one could generalize how a core Android fanbase is the reason Android is popular. . It's the most popular phone OS in the world because it's made up of mindless fans. It's easy to make generalizations when you're so full of bs that you can practically taste it.

My point being, Google and Apple each made innovations that really no one can discount. Now be it that it may, both copied from each other, one more than other, who knows? I'll let the courts figure that out. All we know for sure by devices and photos within the same period is that Android was radically different and headed in the direction of Blackberry before iPhone's development. We also know before it was snapped up under Google, Eric Schmidt also conveniently was an Apple board member likely privy to the development of the iPhone.

As a consumer I'll worry about which device provides better value personally and just like in 2007, the iPhone does. Just don't brainlessly attack iOS users because YOU can't get over the fact that Apple innovated, note this does not always mean inventing.

 

[Oletros]

. All we know for sure by devices and photos within the same period is that Android was radically different and headed in the direction of Blackberry before iPhone's development. We also know before it was snapped up under Google, Eric Schmidt also conveniently was an Apple board member likely privy to the development of the iPhone.

Still using this thousand times debunked crap?

Android has been hardware agnostic since the beginning and it had touch only and wm esque prototypes.

And you have to check a calendar, Schmidt was CEO at Google and Google acquired Android way before Apple invited him to the board

 

[Renzatic]

So you are saying that the capacitive multi-touch technology that fingerworks developed has nothing to do with the capacitive multi-touch screen in the iPhone?

From the little bit of research I just did, it looks like Fingerworks is more involved with gesture recognition, and interface devices like the Magic Trackpad, than the technology behind the capacitive screen themselves.

There might be a bit of their tech in the iPhone, but it seems like it has more to do with the Macbook than anything.

 

[Marrakas]

Time to buy a Galaxy SIII. I can't stand for this madness anylonger.

 

[KnightWRX]

Did Apple buy Fingerworks for something other than their capacitive multi touch technology which has nothing to do with the iPhone? So does that mean Apple did not buy Siri for their voice technology and if Apple ever succeeds in buying out Dropbox, their tech will have nothing to do with iCloud?

Wow, I didn't know that.

Fingerworks made capacitative trackpads and keyboards that had gestures. You know, things like the Magic Trackpad or Macbook trackpads and OS X gestures.

 

[Ryan John]

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.

Logical and well explained. I agree a set cost for a patent is probably right. The problem is the costs Apple are setting for what is at this moment alleged infringement, are just blown out of all proportion, in relation to device costs or overall utility within the device.