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

[samcraig]

The rounded corners thing marks you as an angry angry Android fan pounding the stupid talking point.

Wow if that ever was an incredible (and incorrect) leap in correlation. Not at all accurate and I was being glib in my original post.

Can't believe I missed this utterly ridiculous comment! If Apple launched an iPhone 5 with no LTE it would literally be laughed out of the market! I mean you would be paying in some cases MORE then other top end phones that do have LTE and other features like NFC for the iPhone. But it's all right because it's Apple?

Anyway the sheer fact that the iPad 3 has LTE makes your entire comment invalid really anyway.

The fact that the iPad 3 has LTE is irrelevant because Samsung isn't required to file a lawsuit until they want to. It doesn't have to happen at launch. Otherwise - how would you explain the # of phones that were in Apple's lawsuits.

As for you arguing my first point - I was being mostly glib. Some would argue that Apple is already behind on LTE and that the 4S should have had it. But your argument is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with premium phone or not. Lots of phones lack features others don't. Fact is - you can make a phone and release it into the market right now that is not LTE. There are several markets that don't have LTE. Whether or not it would be profitable, wise, a good idea isn't the point. LTE is not a REQUIRED feature.

 

[bbeagle]

Why do people care whether Samsung are only going after Apple or not?
You are obliged to defend a trademark or you lose it.

EXACTLY.

And Samsung has not gone after any other 4g manufacturers for the past year and a half. They are ONLY going after Apple. Any judge will see this.

 

[samcraig]

EXACTLY.

And Samsung has not gone after any other 4g manufacturers for the past year and a half. They are ONLY going after Apple. Any judge will see this.

I have to ask you - do you know if any/all of these other manufacturers made agreements with Samsung or not?

Or are you just making assumptions?

 

[aerok]

I have to ask you - do you know if any/all of these other manufacturers made agreements with Samsung or not?

Or are you just making assumptions?

Probably assumptions

 

[SchneiderMan]

This is ridiculous, if they sue Apple will prevail!

 

[turtlez]

----------

You Sir are an idiot blinded by your loyalty to Apple. Samsung as a whole is a HUGE multi-national company that has its hands into so many industries that they will not become bankrupt over this. The $1Billion they lost is a drop in the bucket actually. Samsung has a semi-conductor arm, an LCD/LED arm, a weapons manufacturing arm, they are the worlds second largest shipbuilder, not to mention many other aspects in their portfolio. But I bet you never even knew that, which is evident by your asinine statement.

I appreciate Apple products as well as Samsung products, I have an SIII and it's great, but I also have bought 4 MacBook Pros in the last 5 years as well as 2 3rd Gen iPads for me and wife, and 3 iPad 2's for my children. I appreciate good technology and know how to separate fanboyism from consumerism.

I stopped reading when you said 'Will not become bankrupt over this'. If you read my comment correctly you would notice i said something along the lines of 'If they keep this up they will end up bankrupt'. Thanks for replying anyway.

----------

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.

well said. It is always interesting to see a religious samsung boy get explained to in unarguable ways. I am guessing you won't get a reply from Knight

 

[aerok]

I stopped reading when you said 'Will not become bankrupt over this'. If you read my comment correctly you would notice i said something along the lines of 'If they keep this up they will end up bankrupt'. Thanks for replying anyway.

----------



well said. It is always interesting to see a religious samsung boy get explained to in unarguable ways.

I don't see the logic behind your post.

 

[jrswizzle]

Fact is - you can make a phone and release it into the market right now that is not LTE. There are several markets that don't have LTE. Whether or not it would be profitable, wise, a good idea isn't the point. LTE is not a REQUIRED feature.

TBH, the statement that LTE isn't a "required feature" is pretty ridiculous in and of itself. I would say none of a smartphone's features are "required" per se. It all depends on who is doing the requiring and for what is the requiring. It also depends on what you define the core purpose of these devices to be. If you say it is for calling and messaging, you would be correct in saying LTE is not required. However I'd venture to say that due to the added features and capabilities of a smartphone, LTE could very easily be considered required as applications, streaming and such become more complex requiring a data connection which allows for timely download/upload.

People get caught up in the "feature" and completely miss the application/implementation of that feature. Android fans claim Apple is behind the times (and even many Apple fans lament that the new iPhone isn't a major upgrade) because it is implementing features other phones have had. The innovation is not in the features themselves (as each phone can inherently call, check email, browse the web and as we advance more features will be second nature) but in HOW those features are IMPLEMENTED.

This is why Samsung lost. Not because they made a touchscreen device with rounded corners, but because they took that device and IMPLEMENTED iPhone-like qualities. Android in and of itself is not a copy of iOS, nor is iOS a copy of Android. Sure they all, at the base level, DO pretty much the same thing. What sets them apart, and why certain people buy one over the other, is HOW they do those things.

All Samsung has to do is look to Windows/Nokia. Windows Phone 8 is a COMPLETELY new (compared to Android and iOS) take on the UI and feel of a mobile device. They are proof that you can in fact create something new without copying. Something Samsung clearly and deliberately ignored when they slapped their TouchWhiz overlay on the Android OS and designed quite a few of their phones.

I think the most damning piece of evidence, regardless of the foreman's rule-breaking, was Google's warning to Samsung.

 

[samcraig]

I stopped reading when you said 'Will not become bankrupt over this'. If you read my comment correctly you would notice i said something along the lines of 'If they keep this up they will end up bankrupt'. Thanks for replying anyway.

----------



well said. It is always interesting to see a religious samsung boy get explained to in unarguable ways. I am guessing you won't get a reply from Knight

Well said? I assume you mean his analogy at the end is included in your statement? Only problem is - his analogy is completely wrong.

 

[576316]

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

Of course not, that would be silly. It was merely a turn of phrase. Samsung are starting to get really pathetic because they can't stand the embarrassment and are just looking to be bitchy.

 

[apolloa]

Wow if that ever was an incredible (and incorrect) leap in correlation. Not at all accurate and I was being glib in my original post.



The fact that the iPad 3 has LTE is irrelevant because Samsung isn't required to file a lawsuit until they want to. It doesn't have to happen at launch. Otherwise - how would you explain the # of phones that were in Apple's lawsuits.

As for you arguing my first point - I was being mostly glib. Some would argue that Apple is already behind on LTE and that the 4S should have had it. But your argument is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with premium phone or not. Lots of phones lack features others don't. Fact is - you can make a phone and release it into the market right now that is not LTE. There are several markets that don't have LTE. Whether or not it would be profitable, wise, a good idea isn't the point. LTE is not a REQUIRED feature.

Did you mention in your comment that it was a 'glib' what ever that is??? No you did not, I am not clairvoyant, if you mean a comment in a certain way then STATE IT! Save your embarrassment.
Although, stating LTE is not a required feature is embarrassing anyway, yeah sell a smart phone for $700, advertise all your lovely navigation smart features, your apps, iTunes streaming and downloads, and then state how you will not be using the latest high speed data services that devices costing half the price of yours use, because they are not 'required' hahahahaha.

If Apple DARED to launch an iPhone AND charge the same pricing for it AND not use 4G/ LTE in it, the tech journalists would have a field day with them... As I said, they would be laughed out of the market and I can bet the share price would drop too.

Umh... no? Do you really think patent cases work that way?

''You can't sue me for product B because you didn't sue for my product A that came out before''

You need to read what I said as it had NOTHING to do with patents! My other comments mentioned that which you did not quote me on.

And no patents are devices where Apple needs to pay for using the technology which it has not done so, in HTC's case anyway, and so they will go to court.
Is that not the way of Apple? I mean ANYONE making an oblong black or white phone what round corners is in breach of their patent. Oh wait, hmmmm, I do believe the One X is like that, wonder why Apple isn't taking them to court?? Oh yes they aren't Samsung.....

 

[turtlez]

Well said? I assume you mean his analogy at the end is included in your statement? Only problem is - his analogy is completely wrong.

awwwww I am so sorry to hear that. Maybe you should log out.

 

[samcraig]

You agree then - LTE isn't a feature or implementation the iPhone HAS to have. It's something Apple WANTS to have to stay competitive.

This discussion point has nothing to do with the previous lawsuit. The simple fact is - if Apple has failed to obtain/pay for any required licenses (and I don't know if they have or haven't) and Samsung wants to sue - they can and have every right. They decided to use LTE (assuming the iPhone 5 does have LTE) and in doing so, opened themselves up to potential litigation. Im not saying they are in the right or wrong. I have no idea what negotiations were and were not tried. What terms were and were not agreed upon. What patents are or will be in question.

TBH, the statement that LTE isn't a "required feature" is pretty ridiculous in and of itself. I would say none of a smartphone's features are "required" per se. It all depends on who is doing the requiring and for what is the requiring. It also depends on what you define the core purpose of these devices is. If you say it is for calling and messaging, you would be correct in saying LTE is not required. However I'd venture to say that due to the added features and capabilities of a smartphone, LTE could very easily be considered required as applications, streaming and such become more complex requiring a data connection which allows for timely download/upload.

People get caught up in the "feature" and completely miss the application/implementation of that feature. Android fans claim Apple is behind the times (and even many Apple fans lament that the new iPhone isn't a major upgrade) because it is implementing features other phones have had. The innovation is not in the features themselves (as each phone can inherently call, check email, browse the web and as we advance more features will be second nature) but in HOW those features are IMPLEMENTED.

This is why Samsung lost. Not because they made a touchscreen device with rounded corners, but because they took that device and IMPLEMENTED iPhone-like qualities. Android in and of itself is not a copy of iOS, nor is iOS a copy of Android. Sure they all, at the base level, DO pretty much the same thing. What sets them apart, and why certain people buy one over the other, is HOW they do those things.

All Samsung has to do is look to Windows/Nokia. Windows Phone 8 is a COMPLETELY new (compared to Android and iOS) take on the UI and feel of a mobile device. They are proof that you can in fact create something new without copying. Something Samsung clearly and deliberately ignored when they slapped their TouchWhiz overlay on the Android OS and designed quite a few of their phones.

I think the most damning piece of evidence, regardless of the foreman's rule-breaking, was Google's warning to Samsung.

----------

awwwww I am so sorry to hear that. Maybe you should log out.

Aww maybe you should put me on ignore if you don't like what I have to say. That way you only have to hear opinions you agree with. It might be nicer for you.

 

[apolloa]

EXACTLY.

And Samsung has not gone after any other 4g manufacturers for the past year and a half. They are ONLY going after Apple. Any judge will see this.

Because like HTC, I suspect if it goes big then HTC and/ or Samsung can request the iPad 3 and iPhone 5 be removed from American shelves. Has THAT got your attention?

And before you state no way, what did Motorola do to Microsofts Xbox 360? Even if it was for a brief time. And the PS3? what happened to that?

 

[TMay]

Wow if that ever was an incredible (and incorrect) leap in correlation. Not at all accurate and I was being glib in my original post.



The fact that the iPad 3 has LTE is irrelevant because Samsung isn't required to file a lawsuit until they want to. It doesn't have to happen at launch. Otherwise - how would you explain the # of phones that were in Apple's lawsuits.

As for you arguing my first point - I was being mostly glib. Some would argue that Apple is already behind on LTE and that the 4S should have had it. But your argument is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with premium phone or not. Lots of phones lack features others don't. Fact is - you can make a phone and release it into the market right now that is not LTE. There are several markets that don't have LTE. Whether or not it would be profitable, wise, a good idea isn't the point. LTE is not a REQUIRED feature.

If there is an LTE standard, and there is, then Apple has just as much right to use it in any of its products as anyone other company. Samsung may attempt to obtain an injunction against Apple products that include LTE, but if these are SEP, then almost all Courts in the world would consider that to be an unnecessary legal tool until all negotiations on FRAND licensing between the parties had failed and Court determined license fees went unpaid. Bottom line, its doubtful that Samsung gets any injunction beyond those in South Korea for SEP, and even that will have to stand up to trade and political pressure.

Note that Apple paid a large initial settlement to Nokia after a lengthy legal battle, has licensed a large portfolio of Nokia IP, and is also cross licensing some IP to Nokia as part of those terms. Hardly a corporation with a reputation of not paying for IP.

But of course, it only matters if someone else's ox is gored, in this case Samsung's in California.

 

[Dwalls90]

What has Apple done to you guys? It's really really amazing seeing the mindless drones they have created. I give Apple a lot of credit for this phenomenon.

And they aren't going anywhere...they are too important to the world's economy for things much more important that mobile devices. Trust and believe that.

Done to us "guys"?

Nothing. I merely stated financial figures and the blow the $1 Billion damages will impact on their bottom line. 9%

I never said Samsung was going anywhere.

 

[jrswizzle]

You agree then - LTE isn't a feature or implementation the iPhone HAS to have. It's something Apple WANTS to have to stay competitive.

This discussion point has nothing to do with the previous lawsuit. The simple fact is - if Apple has failed to obtain/pay for any required licenses (and I don't know if they have or haven't) and Samsung wants to sue - they can and have every right. They decided to use LTE (assuming the iPhone 5 does have LTE) and in doing so, opened themselves up to potential litigation. Im not saying they are in the right or wrong. I have no idea what negotiations were and were not tried. What terms were and were not agreed upon. What patents are or will be in question.

So you're saying you haven't really said anything

As has been stated numerous times on here Apple really has no responsibility in the matter. IF Apple is using LTE radios constructed without the proper licensing it isn't Apple's fault. Qualcomm is the creator and designer of said chipset and it is up to them to make sure they have licensed according to the patents Samsung owns.

But to say LTE isn't "required" is like saying a web browser isn't required or an email app isn't required. As I said, it all depends on what you define the purpose of a smartphone to be. If it is, as most people use it, a mobile computing device then faster data speeds are going to become and have already become necessary given the complexity of apps and services utilized.

AND you've completely missed the central point I was trying to get across. Its not Apple implementing LTE (the feature) to keep up with others but HOW (the implementation) Apple incorporates LTE into the iPhone 5 that SHOULD be the focus.

 

[samcraig]

Agreed. I imagine the line Samsung would take is that Apple refused "fair" pricing and used the patents. This was similar to one of the issues of the last lawsuit.

It will be interesting. I'm all in favor of negotiations vs lawsuits.

If there is an LTE standard, and there is, then Apple has just as much right to use it in any of its products as anyone other company. Samsung may attempt to obtain an injunction against Apple products that include LTE, but if these are SEP, then almost all Courts in the world would consider that to be an unnecessary legal tool until all negotiations on FRAND licensing between the parties had failed and Court determined license fees went unpaid. Bottom line, its doubtful that Samsung gets any injunction beyond those in South Korea for SEP, and even that will have to stand up to trade and political pressure.

Note that Apple paid a large initial settlement to Nokia after a lengthy legal battle, has licensed a large portfolio of Nokia IP, and is also cross licensing some IP to Nokia as part of those terms. Hardly a corporation with a reputation of not paying for IP.

But of course, it only matters if someone else's ox is gored, in this case Samsung's in California.

----------

I don't think your comparison is a good one. I don't disagree. I just think there are MANY phones that exists and are solid phones that have web browsers and not having one is a detriment. However - there are MANY phones that do NOT have LTE that are great phones and work well.

LTE <>web browsing as a feature.

At least not currently.

So you're saying you haven't really said anything

As has been stated numerous times on here Apple really has no responsibility in the matter. IF Apple is using LTE radios constructed without the proper licensing it isn't Apple's fault. Qualcomm is the creator and designer of said chipset and it is up to them to make sure they have licensed according to the patents Samsung owns.

But to say LTE isn't "required" is like saying a web browser isn't required or an email app isn't required. As I said, it all depends on what you define the purpose of a smartphone to be. If it is, as most people use it, a mobile computing device then faster data speeds are going to become and have already become necessary given the complexity of apps and services utilized.

 

[jrswizzle]

Originally posted by samcraig
I don't think your comparison is a good one. I don't disagree. I just think there are MANY phones that exists and are solid phones that have web browsers and not having one is a detriment. However - there are MANY phones that do NOT have LTE that are great phones and work well.

LTE <>web browsing as a feature.

At least not currently.

So then it boils down to when does something like LTE become a "standard". By all accounts it is a mobile standard and has been recognized as such regardless of how widespread the acceptance of that standard is to date.

But it is really neither here nor there. The point is if the LTE chip in the iP5 is infringing on Samsung's patents, Qualcomm is the one to be sued, not Apple. Therefore Samsung's targeting of Apple can really only be seen as retaliatory, unless Apple's infringement happened at the software level.

But can you really see Apple being that careless after making Samsung look the way they did?

 

[linkgx1]

If it's a stolen product, then Samsung needs TO be payed. Fair is fair.

 

[jrswizzle]

If it's a stolen product, then Samsung needs TO be payed. Fair is fair.

Of course, but Apple isn't the one needing to do the paying. Qualcomm, as a manufacturer of these chips should have all licensing taken care of thus absolving Apple of responsibility.

That's like saying someone who unknowingly buys stolen property should be held responsible for the theft.

 

[Oletros]

EXACTLY.

And Samsung has not gone after any other 4g manufacturers for the past year and a half. They are ONLY going after Apple. Any judge will see this.

And? It is irrelevant if they have sued one, two or one hundred companies. The only thing that matters is if there is infringement or not.

 

[pgyanke]

No, you said that they copied Apple

No, I said Apple's competitors copied their designs and interface. I used Nokia as one example.

 

[samcraig]

So then it boils down to when does something like LTE become a "standard". By all accounts it is a mobile standard and has been recognized as such regardless of how widespread the acceptance of that standard is to date.

But it is really neither here nor there. The point is if the LTE chip in the iP5 is infringing on Samsung's patents, Qualcomm is the one to be sued, not Apple. Therefore Samsung's targeting of Apple can really only be seen as retaliatory, unless Apple's infringement happened at the software level.

But can you really see Apple being that careless after making Samsung look the way they did?

It's not a question of standard - see KnightRTX's post about that.

Apple is free to use FRAND patents as long as they license them. Yes - the first question is, of course, whether or not Qualcomm's license can be transferred. If so - there's not much of a suit. If not, then it's debatable (I believe) who is responsible based on what terms are in the contract. It's entirely possible that Apple and Qualcomm are both violating terms.

My original comment has nothing to do with blame. My original comment is that if Samsung believes their patents have been violated or used without payment/etc - they have every right to sue - whether or not posters here like it or not.

 

[Oletros]

Of course, but Apple isn't the one needing to do the paying. Qualcomm, as a manufacturer of these chips should have all licensing taken care of thus absolving Apple of responsibility.

That's like saying someone who unknowingly buys stolen property should be held responsible for the theft.

Tell that to Apple paying Nokia for 3G patents