Apple's Chief Patent Litigator Profiled as Samsung Threatens Lawsuits over iPhone 5

[bbeagle]

Getting very tired of apple. Samsung for the win!

Apple invented a new phone, publicly announced that they Patented the hell out of it. Samsung didn't care and copied it. Apple sued. Apple won, because Samsung did, indeed, copy their phone.

Now Samsung is the crying baby trying to go after ONLY APPLE for FRAND patents.

And you back Samsung? Why?

 

[apolloa]

1 korean giant and the other is taiwanese.

Oh right. Thanks for the correction.

 

[BigZ243]

Heh, but the alternative is a future with Windows 8. Would rather enter a swallow my own head up my anus competition with Apple than endure that.

You have chosen wisely

 

[DakotaGuy]

I'm glad I don't own one Samsung product, however sadly some of their components are stuck in my Apple products. I think the time is coming however where Apple will have nothing to do with Samsung. Firewall or not these two corporations aren't exactly friendly with each other anymore.

 

[Imac&SoShouldU]

Ermahgerd!!! Anutter parrtint lerrsoot!!!!

 

[pacalis]

This all harkens back to 2007 when both RIM and Nokia went onstage and BOTH said "We aren't worried about Apple's entrance into this field. They are not telecom people. We are." - Now look at them. It's almost like watching a bunch of children in a school yard. One group picking on another group. It just looks ridiculous. If these other companies would just spend the money and time (and that is really the biggy here - the time factor - cause it takes TIME to innovate) and actually make something lust-worthy, none of this would be going on. I hate to say it, but Asia, for the most part, is just one gigantic photocopier. That is why all of Sony's, Panasonic's, HTC's, Samsung's stuff looks almost identical. Someone comes up with a good idea and the rest of them just follow suit. What the real problem comes down to is an American company who just isn't going to stand for that. Now they are pissed and wanting to retaliate any way they can. Stop being LAZY! OWN YOUR PROBLEMS!!!

This is one example of the utter nonsense that repeats itself over and over again in the news (i.e. PR) and on this site. Prior to Apple, most semi-co's typically did large cross-licensing arrangements, mostly driven by practices developed in the IBM antitrust lawsuits. As these companies supplied the phone industry these practices largely carried over (i.e to RIM and Nokia). Apple, as a new entrant, licensed in heavily, but didn't license out. Moreover, they don't do much R&D relative the others. So they're the new guy in town, they took the basics from everyone else, put a lot of lipstick on it and won because that's a way is simply more efficient and productive (as long as you can get away with it).

Until recently, Apple's patent portfolio was relative meager and focused on design patents, which until recently were thought to be of generally lower value. Meanwhile, you have Samsung's IP stock which is literally 10x the size of Apples. So next time you accuse a company of not innovating, stop buying into a nonsensical US narrative, and instead understand that a company that puts out what, 30, 40 new models of phone a year, is the dominant top tier, premium supplier in multiple component categories, CAN NOT possibly be generating this capability by copying a company that puts out 1 new model a year.

 

[KnightWRX]

Apple invented a new phone, publicly announced that they Patented the hell out of it. Samsung didn't care and copied it. Apple sued. Apple won, because Samsung did, indeed, copy their phone.

Now Samsung is the crying baby trying to go after ONLY APPLE for FRAND patents.

And you back Samsung? Why?

Because the situation is not as simple as you claim it is maybe ?

 

[ahireasu]

All it takes is one valid patent. # of patents doesn't matter. I'm not arguing with your point (or defending others). Just pointing out that quantity of patents really doesn't amount to much other than you (may) have more of a chance on someone infringing on one of them.

I agree with you,the number is not important but what's important is that samsung doess have a large number of patents that are related to the core technology=apple can't go around them and must pay to use them.
That's the fair way to do it but i haven't seen apple playing fair for a long time now,they are following a childs way"whats mine is mine and whats yours is also mine" latelly.

 

[576316]

Samsung are getting pathetic now. They can't take that they were caught red handed stealing patents and now they've got permanent red faces. Sure, they can take on Apple again, but have they really got another $1bn to give up?

 

[samcraig]

You're confusing an essential standard with standard essential patents. ...

Thanks for the clarification. I think you stated the difference very well for me and for others.

The heart of my point which (based on fallacy of information or not) is still the same. Apple, Samsung, etc do not HAVE to create a phone that uses LTE. They choose to. And if they choose to, like you said - they need to pay for the license.

This contradicts an earlier poster's assertion that since Verizon requires all phones moving forward to be LTE compliant, that there's no option but to create an LTE phone. There's always an option. That option is to not create one.

 

[Technarchy]

Patent exhaustion is going to stop this Samsung scam dead it it's tracks

 

[ahireasu]

Apple invented a new phone, publicly announced that they Patented the hell out of it. Samsung didn't care and copied it. Apple sued. Apple won, because Samsung did, indeed, copy their phone.

Now Samsung is the crying baby trying to go after ONLY APPLE for FRAND patents.

And you back Samsung? Why?

Invented you mean the pinch to zoom?tap to zoom?apple took existing ideas that all ready was in use and patent it and then sued others for using them...

 

[clibinarius]

Apple doesn't design the wireless chips. The fault doesn't fall onto them, but the manufacturer of the LTE chips.

As already said, Samsung should go after the LTE CHIP manufacturer.

Samsung is just pissed off and seeking retribution, and has no valid case, with Apple at least. They should be going after the chip manufacturers and impose their issues or licensing fees with them.

They lost once, and they will get served again.

Actually, they've won every case I know of in the end except the one that happened to be near Apple HQ. It also happened to be the only one with a fine that matters.

Apple has actually lost most of the cases around the world. I would say...politically, it looks like Apple paid someone off, even if that isn't quite what happened. What's the rest of the world to think? If Apple bans the Galaxy in the US somehow, I can see Samsung pulling all their operations out of the US, selling their stuff that services the US to other companies, and to stop supplying Apple with components, and then using those components to take over other markets like Europe and Japan. It would be a really bad move on Apple's part to drive Samsung out of the US, which I'm not sure they're not trying to do. Also, to handle the temporary production problems, Samsung will close their US plants to boot if they stop doing business here over massive legal liabilities for things like "bounce back"-

So I really think this patent war needs to end with a sense of reality. Apple is in really good space and I'm not sure what they're trying to accomplish. Saying a product with good battery life, NFC and a much bigger screen and LTE is a ripoff of your product because a few fashion choices is really pushing it. The Galaxy Nexus is not an iPhone, nor is it supposed to be. I still have iOS, but I just don't think Apple has a reasonable case, I never have, I still don't, and I don't think Samsung has a case (although for some strange reason the US courts decided Apple didn't have to pay Samsung for the technology it cribbed...though all other courts around the world again disagree).

Also, if Samsung is willing to stop the iPhone 5 from coming to market, that means they don't care much about the Apple contracts anymore, since they'd have little to keep selling. Just a thought-Samsung is basically declaring "We don't need Apple"-and do you really want to risk an iPhone without Samsung components?

Didn't think so.

 

[samcraig]

I agree with you,the number is not important but what's important is that samsung doess have a large number of patents that are related to the core technology=apple can't go around them and must pay to use them.
That's the fair way to do it but i haven't seen apple playing fair for a long time now,they are following a childs way"whats mine is mine and whats yours is also mine" latelly.

Well to further - not only don't they want to pay - but when they tried to negotiate - they created terms which were ludicrous that no sane person or company would every agree to.

Samsung are getting pathetic now. They can't take that they were caught red handed stealing patents and now they've got permanent red faces. Sure, they can take on Apple again, but have they really got another $1bn to give up?

Why would they have to give up another $1bn - whether or not they won or lost a patent suit which they initiated against Apple?

Also - perhaps a wrong word choice. Samsung didn't STEAL patents. They violated patents. You might argue that they stole designs. But again - they didn't steal PATENTS.

Finally - the previous lawsuit it moot anyway. If Apple is guilty of not paying for FRAND licenses then they are guilty. Doesn't matter how guilty Samsung is or isn't of anything else.

Good luck with your hatred though.

 

[JAT]

1) You don't have to implement LTE. You can have slower phones. Just like you can create a phone that doesn't have rounded corners (as an example)

I guess the question then becomes - at what point does LTE become a requirement. Meaning - just because one carrier in the world requires it - does that mean it is a standard? Fair, perhaps not. But that would be the argument, wouldn't it.

It's not whether Apple chooses to make an LTE product, or whether VZW requires it. It's what is required of them when/if they make an LTE product. And the "fair" is based on the tech requirements for said product to participate in a market that has specific tech requirements, not "oh, you could make socks instead."

 

[ahireasu]

Samsung are getting pathetic now. They can't take that they were caught red handed stealing patents and now they've got permanent red faces. Sure, they can take on Apple again, but have they really got another $1bn to give up?

Why? you believe apple will go and say that she owns the LTE technology?

 

[inscrewtable]

...We all lost that day...

I don't see how 'we' all lost anything. It wasn't too long ago that a mobile phone the size of a small piece of carry on luggage was state of the art. Now we have all the world's knowledge at our fingertips while we don't even bother to take much of an interest in a one ton mobile laboratory that's tooling around mars which was lowered on a jet powered air crane not dis similar to something from The Jetsons.

Apple and Samsung suing each other will not suddenly send us back to the dark ages.

 

[Dwalls90]

Samsung is playing the same game - whether you happen to like or agree with it that Apple is. There's no difference. And the blame ultimately doesn't go to either party. The blame goes to the broken patent system.

No legal system is ever 100% fool proof, but if you compare the US with an IP system, versus China that is a complete failure in regards to IP, the choice should be pretty obvious that the US does the best out of any nation in terms of protecting innovation.

That said, it should be fairly obvious by even comparing a Samsung smartphone prior the iPhones release to one post iPhone, that Samsung surely was "magically inspired".

Apple had a basis for suing Samsung. Samsung is suing back in a sense of retribution. Any judge with common sense will realize: (A) Samsung has no valid case, (B) Is unfairly attacking solely Apple, (C) Is suing Apple solely because Apple made a fool of them on the main stage.

Perhaps if you have told that to Apple they wouldn't settled with Nokia when they accused Apple of infringing 3G patents.

Nokia is no threat to Apple. They clearly decided it was a better decision to pay them off then play that game.

 

[ahireasu]

Well to further - not only don't they want to pay - but when they tried to negotiate - they created terms which were ludicrous that no sane person or company would every agree to.

Exactly that and thats what infuriates me with apple,i like the apple products but the moves the company does it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

 

[kdarling]

Several comments:

1) It's a sad day when we still don't know who at Apple developed the original multi-touch demo that swayed Jobs away from an iPod clickwheel phone, yet their chief litigator gets a profile in a magazine. Upside down heroes.

2) LTE FRAND is not voluntary for Apple, at least when it comes to the Nortel patents their consortium bought. It was a requirement to bid.

3) LTE FRAND is voluntary for Samsung. They have to agree to let their patents be treated that way. Obviously core patents would be, just to get them included in the standard.

However, imagine if Samsung had another patent that wasn't required to implement the LTE core, but which improved on it with say, increased speed or battery longevity. It could be as simple as a software method in the broadband code, which they could prevent Apple from using. (Perhaps others had already cross-licensed to use it.) Just a possibility.

PS. The LTE patent owners got together a couple of years ago and promised the world that they'd try to keep the total LTE royalty rate to a single digit percentage. However, if you add up all their publicly known rates, it's already at least 15% and could be twice that with everyone involved. So much for good intent. As with GSM and UMTS before it, cross-licensing is the primary way that major companies will be able keep the LTE rate down for themselves.

 

[4God]

Might as well add iPhone 6, 7 & 8 to the 'To Sue' roster.

Madness.

You forgot the 5s, 6s, 7s & 8s...

 

[Iconoclysm]

1) You don't have to implement LTE. You can have slower phones. Just like you can create a phone that doesn't have rounded corners (as an example)

2) depends on what the licensing agreements say




Doesn't matter. They don't have to sue before or at launch. They can wait until several product infringe just like Apple did.

Both major US carriers refuse to carry smartphones without LTE starting this past March.

 

[dysamoria]

As dictator of the world, I would invalidate all these battled patents and force corporations to start over with IP and as punishment for bad corporate behavior and wasting of public resources and our web bandwidth. Patent troll companies would be banned, disassembled, and their "IP" would be put into the public domain.

Vote for me as dictator of the world. I have many more similar sweeping changes in mind for my future domination.

 

[chrmjenkins]

Several comments:

1) It's a sad day when we still don't know who at Apple developed the original multi-touch demo that swayed Jobs away from an iPod clickwheel phone, yet their chief litigator gets a profile in a magazine. Upside down heroes.

Agreed. Thing is, that kind of excellence is expected at Apple and doesn't get headlines. Lawyers, suits and billion dollar awards will always get headlines though.

PS. The LTE patent owners got together a couple of years ago and promised the world that they'd try to keep the total LTE royalty rate to a single digit percentage. However, if you add up all their publicly known rates, it's already at least 15% and could be twice that with everyone involved. So much for good intent. As with GSM and UMTS before it, cross-licensing is the primary way that major companies will be able keep the LTE rate down for themselves.

More of a bitter ceasefire than a peaceful agreement, eh?

 

[bbeagle]

Because the situation is not as simple as you claim it is maybe ?

The situation IS this simple.

The problem is, that people seem to side with Apple/Samsung much like loyal party lines ala Democrat/Republican.

Samsung DID copy, the documents presented at the trial clearly showed that they compared their phones to the iPhone and replicated as much as they could.

The FRAND patents are interesting. Apple claims that the licensing fees have been paid, because the manufacturers of the chips they bought from other companies have paid their licensing fees. And just installing those chips in their phone should not require ANOTHER licensing fee.

What Samsung is saying is that if I, for example, bought gas from a gas station for my car.... I haven't paid any highway fee taxes... because the gas station that sold me the gas paid them as part of the cost to sell me the gas. I should pay them AGAIN because I'm using the gas. I think that's ridiculous.