Apple Targets Samsung With New Lawsuit Over 'Galaxy' Line

[wovel]

Samsung will simply pay a hefty amount to Apple and we will never hear anything about this again.

Apple is doing an end-around to renegotiate terms with the manufacturing group.

couldn't Samsung simply get back at Apple by NOT making Apple's stuff? I mean, come on.

Yeah. The divisions are on separate, but there is a bottom line for the whole thing. That bottom line says Samsung makes a lot more money as an Apple supplier then as an Apple competitor..

Samsung can easily do that. Pay Apple and then get their money back by raising the prices on RAM and flash memory (because their cost base grew as a result of patent litigation)

They could, but that would be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

 

[strider42]

They have patents but they HAVE to pursue infringers or they can lose the rights to the patents. That's why you see so many patent lawsuits. Unfortunately, that's just how the system works (in very basic terms).

You're thinking of trademark law. Patents are awarded for a specific period of time. You can't lose them just because you don't defend them. You can sue at any time.

Its only trademarks that you have to protect in order to keep them.

You see so many patent lawsuits because there's money in it and to stifle competition. There is no other reason.

 

[lilo777]

Revenues are equal to zero if not associated with costs. Give us the profit figures.

From Wikipedia:

Samsung: Net income US$ 8.33 billion (2009)
Apple: Profit US$ 14.01 billion (FY 2010)

Apple's profits are higher but that's because they spend about $8 billion less on R&D than Samsung

 

[aohus]

shame really that Apple is resorting to Microsoft-esque tactics. If you can't beat em, just sue em, mentality.

Thats like saying that Coca-Cola should sue Pepsi

Xerox PARC should have aggressively sued Apple when the GUI was becoming commercialized.

NO, Apple did not invent the first GUI Operating System. Xerox made the first GUI in their Alto systems. Xerox only sued (late for that matter) when Apple sued Microsoft for their GUI OS (Windows).

 

[wovel]

You're thinking of trademark law. Patents are awarded for a specific period of time. You can't lose them just because you don't defend them. You can sue at any time.

Its only trademarks that you have to protect in order to keep them.

You see so many patent lawsuits because there's money in it and to stifle competition. There is no other reason.

If by stifle competition you mean incent R&D, I agree.

 

[polaris20]

Can only be 1 reason, Apple are worried.

If they felt totally confident in their product then they would not feel any threat from others and need to try something like this on.

If Apple cannot beat them....they sue them. Way to go Apple, you are devoid of morals and innovation.

When can we officially say that Apple is now the New Microsoft?

You guys clearly have no idea how patents work.

Absolutely not True......they MUST sue or they lose rights to the patent. Its the way the system works

No. They're protecting their IP.

Ding ding! We have a couple winners. Finally someone on MR that gets it.

Show me something that works as well BEFORE Apple demoed the iPhone.

Technology =/= usability.

If you hate Apple then why are you doing here?

Because it's Mac Rumors. Where the trolls/Apple bashers roam.

 

[Kwill]

Don't bite the hand that screws you.

 

[BrettJDeriso]

I'm surprised it's taken this long, to be honest: I've thought for a long time that Samsung's phones in particular are pretty much a blatant rip-off of Apple's industrial design and user interface.
HTC have shown that they can produce an innovative and different interface with their Sense UI, but Samsung seem to just want to rip-off Apples look and feel

What, precisely, did Samsung blatantly "rip off" from Apple? The sliding hardware keyboard? The chunky black plastic form factor? The pry-off rear cover and removable battery? Was it the flash they were including with their cell phone cameras before Apple even introduced a phone? Perhaps the plastic buttons and the extra dedicated (wasted) interface "buttons" on the screen. Maybe the skinnable launcher and widget-enabled home screens?

I hope that was sarcasm, cause in any other context it just makes you look like an uneducated fanboy.

If anything, this just proves that Samsung is doing something right. I mean, let's face it, Apple is acting a lot like the Winklevoss twins at this point. Technically, they should sue every PC manufacturer on Earth for every ounce of silicon ever produced, because, after all, Apple did invent the personal computer.

 

[lilo777]

They could, but that would be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Not at all. They can use those components for producing Galaxy devices. And they can use free Foxconn resources (since they would not be assembling iPhones anymore) for assembling.

 

[marksman]

Pretty textbook case of biting the hand that feeds you here, even if Samsung business units are separated.

Obviously you mean Samsung is biting the hand that feeds them as they are ripping off their biggest screen component customer.

You are right it is dumb for Samsung to have done that, and I am sure the people who run the screen business are pissed as hell at the idiots in the cell phone and tablet division who pissed off their best customer.

In case you don't understand how business dynamics work, which I suspect you don't, Apple is one of the biggest, if not the biggest customer of Samsung Corp in existence. Another division of that company did something that really pissed off this important customer, enough that the customer ended up suing because of it.

Samsung is the one who screwed up here not Apple... and why people think Apple should not protect its design rights, well I don't understand.

Some people seem to think that Samsung's logic is "Well they are our customer so it is okay if we steal from them" is just in outerspace.

 

[wovel]

From Wikipedia:

Samsung: Net income US$ 8.33 billion (2009)
Apple: Profit US$ 14.01 billion (FY 2010)

Apple's profits are higher but that's because they spend about $8 billion less on R&D than Samsung

Apple's profits are higher because they waste less money on fruitless enedevaours. Sad with all that spend, Samsung still had to copy Apple.

 

[0997853]

shame really that Apple is resorting to Microsoft-esque tactics. If you can't beat em, just sue em, mentality.

Thats like saying that Coca-Cola should sue Pepsi

Xerox PARC should have aggressively sued Apple when the GUI was becoming commercialized.

NO, Apple did not invent the first GUI Operating System. Xerox made the first GUI in their Alto systems. Xerox only sued (late for that matter) when Apple sued Microsoft for their GUI OS (Windows).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Xerox_Alto.jpg/240px-Xerox_Alto.jpg

Look's just like an iMac! almost... Stupid patents... Good for Xerox, too bad that playing fair is not helping these days...

 

[polaris20]

What, precisely, did Samsung blatantly "rip off" from Apple? The sliding hardware keyboard? The chunky black plastic form factor? The pry-off rear cover and removable battery? Was it the flash they were including with their cell phone cameras before Apple even introduced a phone? Perhaps the plastic buttons and the extra dedicated (wasted) interface "buttons" on the screen. Maybe the skinnable launcher and widget-enabled home screens?

I hope that was sarcasm, cause in any other context it just makes you look like an uneducated fanboy.

If anything, this just proves that Samsung is doing something right. I mean, let's face it, Apple is acting a lot like the Winklevoss twins at this point. Technically, they should sue every PC manufacturer on Earth for every ounce of silicon ever produced, because, after all, Apple did invent the personal computer.

As it's already been said, Apple is protecting their IP and patents. If they don't show the effort, they run the risk of losing them. It's not a "Apple is evil" issue, it's how IP and patents work.

 

[Red-red]

If those bringing up the Prada in comparison to the iPhone had actually used the Prada.... You really wouldn't be comparing it to the iPhone. It was a truly awful bit of technology.... If you could even call it that.

The article has nothing what so ever to do with honeycomb from what has already been written.

As for apple's history. My god some fud gets spread around these days.

 

[gnasher729]

Wrong... Apple didn't invent the concept of the touch UI, they bought most of what they have and own very little rights to it.

The whole point of "buying" is that after you buy something, you own it. Yes, Apple bought a lot of touch ui technology, and now they _do_ own it.

 

[iPad 2]

I guess we can kiss any hope of a 4" OLED screen showing up in the iPhone goodbye.

I DO see their point.

Then the iPhone 4 came out and a half year later, Samsung introducted the Galaxy S II...

Followed up with the Galaxy S II Mini...

But I don't think companies should be able to copyright overall aesthetic choices unless the two products are basically identical looking and intended to be sold as cheap knockoffs.

And the Samsung phones are not cheap knock offs, they're actually probably the best andriod phones on the market.

So I think this lawsuit is ******** and hope Apple gets laughed out of court.

 

[wovel]

Not at all. They can use those components for producing Galaxy devices. And they can use free Foxconn resources (since they would not be assembling iPhones anymore) for assembling.

Lol.

There would still be minuscule demand for the galaxy lines. Just millions of people using old technology while Apple found our bought a new supplier

 

[Bonte]

Looking at the TouchWiz UI, I see your point.

But, at what point does an interface become too generic? For example, the concept of pages of icons in a grid isn't really new or innovative. The concept of swiping across screens is simple and intuitive and should be standardized
(e.g. copied) for that exact reason. Should other phone makers put the icons in a circle, "just because" they need to be different? Should they force you to do something differently just because the best and most intuitive way was "already taken"?

We had smartphones, tablets and organisers years before the iPhone, if the layout and form-factor was so intuitive it should have been used before. Apple also uses the the start-screen a lot in promotions, it has become a logo for the device. Samsung also copy's the advertising to make it look like an Apple device, more than once i have to look more closely to a billboard to confirm it's not an iPhone. Samsung is the biggest copycat of them all.

 

[aohus]

Look's just like an iMac! almost... Stupid patents... Good for Xerox, too bad that playing fair is not helping these days...

you mean the iMac looks just like the Alto.. other way around

Alto was released in 1973. Macintosh in 1984.

 

[lilo777]

As it's already been said, Apple is protecting their IP and patents. If they don't show the effort, they run the risk of losing them. It's not a "Apple is evil" issue, it's how IP and patents work.

There are several ways to lose a patent. One way is not to defend it. Another ways is trying to defend bogus patents and have the court invalidate it.

 

[LagunaSol]

Ridiculous. Nothing is at all similar, aside from the bezel.

Perhaps you need to actually look at an iPhone 3GS and a Galaxy Tab sometime.

 

[Full of Win]

Where is the logical place for a dock? At the bottom (no brainer--do you want to turn your device sideways or upside down?). Grid is the most efficient layout. How else are you going to lay them out?

Delete is a little similar, but it is one of the easiest ways to delete something. You can't exactly right click and going to the menu to delete apps seems innefficient.

Palm and Microsoft put their icons in a grid pattern that Apple COPIED with iOS. I don't see them (or their patent holders in the case of Palm) suing. Apple is acting like a baby because they can see what it coming (more open ecosystems, less expensive options) and they know it will mean a loss of power and money.

Perhaps you need to actually look at an iPhone 3GS and a Galaxy Tab sometime.

http://www.coated.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Samsung-Galaxy-Tab-back.jpg

http://phonerpt.com/wp-content/uploads/iphone-3g-white-live-picture.jpg

OMG, Samsung put a white back on the back of their tablet. Cats sleeping with dogs! Your so-called proof is a joke.

 

[fuwafuwa]

Not at all. They can use those components for producing Galaxy devices. And they can use free Foxconn resources (since they would not be assembling iPhones anymore) for assembling.

Why not, because last year sales was "quite smooth".

 

[LagunaSol]

But I don't think companies should be able to copyright overall aesthetic choices unless the two products are basically identical looking and intended to be sold as cheap knockoffs.

And the Samsung phones are not cheap knock offs, they're actually probably the best andriod phones on the market.

Wait, so they should be able to clone a competitor's product's industrial design as long as they don't undercut the competitor's price?

 

[0815]

Is the law suit really about the 'looks' ?

Ok, after reading a bit more about this law suit it seems to be really more or less about the 'look and feel' .... while it is probably annoying for Apple that they decided for a very similar look and feel, I'm not sure that this is enough for a law suit - not that I know much about patent law, but it just sounds stupid.