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

[pgyanke]

Except Apple wasn't the first touch screen phone

* sigh * I didn't say they were. I'm referring to their specific patents in functionality and UI.

 

[linkgx1]

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.

Didn't Gizmomo get the police knocking on the door with the iPhone 4?

But don't you dare touch my Qualcomm!

 

[Oletros]

No, you said that they copied Apple

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

Does not compute

 

[ahireasu]

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.

So let me get this staight,when apple sue companies is justice and when other companies sue apple is because they are bitchy?
Doesn't samsung own LTE patents?doesn't apple going to launch a LTE enabled phone without paying royalty for LTE?Doesn't samsung have the right to sue apple for that?why because it will look bitchy?where in the law it say if a company sue you and win then you can't sue this company if it violates tech that you own because you look pathetic and bitchy?

 

[apolloa]

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?

Wrong. Apple is the one whose responsibility it is to ensure all the hardware it has chosen to put in it's products are covered under the patents laws etc. It is the one selling the device to the public. If patents are brought to bare it will be against the devices manufacturer, Apple.

That's how I see it.

 

[jrswizzle]

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.

I think stating that Samsung has the right to sue is pretty obvious....

There are plenty of questions of course, but given the facts I'd say it is more likely Samsung is blowing smoke than there is an actual fire.

 

[rjohnstone]

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.

Not entirely true.
None of us knows the terms in which Samsung's LTE license was issued.

Qualcomm can make the chips, but put the licensing costs and obligations of the underlying tech on the buyer.
This reduces manufacturing costs on Qualcomm.
They've done it before, so I don't see why they couldn't be doing it now.

 

[samcraig]

I think stating that Samsung has the right to sue is pretty obvious....

There are plenty of questions of course, but given the facts I'd say it is more likely Samsung is blowing smoke than there is an actual fire.

I think there are several posters on this thread who believe Samsung has no right to sue and this is all sour grapes. It's possible it's sour grapes. But it's more likely that it's just a business decision to protect their patents. The fact that it's Apple and that they just lost a suit might just be icing on the cake. But if Samsung had won - I am sure they would still sue over this. So it's not really sour grapes being the motivator.

 

[pgyanke]

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.

Unless it can be demonstrated that those 30, 40 new models of phones were not headed in the direction of Apple's new model... until the competition saw its superiority. And this was demonstrated in court for a win.

 

[jrswizzle]

Wrong. Apple is the one whose responsibility it is to ensure all the hardware it has chosen to put in it's products are covered under the patents laws etc. It is the one selling the device to the public. If patents are brought to bare it will be against the devices manufacturer, Apple.

That's how I see it.

So you are saying that the manufacturer of the actual device (the LTE chip) that is the center of the infringement is less to blame than the manufacturer of the device (the iPhone 5) which simply installs the chip?

How does that make sense? Obviously if Apple and Qualcomm were colluding to drive Samsung out and infringed that would be different.

But if the cops came knocking at your door and arrested you for car theft and you paid for you car you're saying you'd be ok with that? Obviously Apple should do it's due diligence, but that doesn't mean they should ultimately be held responsible.

 

[samcraig]

So you are saying that the manufacturer of the actual device (the LTE chip) that is the center of the infringement is less to blame than the manufacturer of the device (the iPhone 5) which simply installs the chip?

How does that make sense? Obviously if Apple and Qualcomm were colluding to drive Samsung out and infringed that would be different.

But if the cops came knocking at your door and arrested you for car theft and you paid for you car you're saying you'd be ok with that? Obviously Apple should do it's due diligence, but that doesn't mean they should ultimately be held responsible.

In your example - the car would be impounded. Whether you paid for it or not. Stolen goods is stolen goods. Is this the scenario you want to go with?

 

[jrswizzle]

I think there are several posters on this thread who believe Samsung has no right to sue and this is all sour grapes. It's possible it's sour grapes. But it's more likely that it's just a business decision to protect their patents. The fact that it's Apple and that they just lost a suit might just be icing on the cake. But if Samsung had won - I am sure they would still sue over this. So it's not really sour grapes being the motivator.

And I'm saying that there are plenty of people (Apple fans and haters) who love to deal in generalities and take one person's "its all sour grapes" and paint the entire Apple community some shade of "only Apple is allowed to sue".

I'd say that given the evidence (Apple's track record, the recent suit, the fact that LTE IS recognized as a standard, Qualcomm's manufacturing of the radio) it is much more likely this threat of a suit won't amount to much and Samsung is just posturing as to not look weak.

 

[aerok]

So you are saying that the manufacturer of the actual device (the LTE chip) that is the center of the infringement is less to blame than the manufacturer of the device (the iPhone 5) which simply installs the chip?

How does that make sense? Obviously if Apple and Qualcomm were colluding to drive Samsung out and infringed that would be different.

But if the cops came knocking at your door and arrested you for car theft and you paid for you car you're saying you'd be ok with that? Obviously Apple should do it's due diligence, but that doesn't mean they should ultimately be held responsible.

At the end, it really depends on what the terms were between Qualcomm and Samsung is. But also, why do we all assume that Apple is using a Qualcomm chip? Nothing official yet?

 

[bogg]

I can't believe how many people in this thread misses the point about the "Standards essential" part... It's not "Essential standard" but "Standards essential". That is, you don't have to implement the standard, but _if_ you implement the standard you _have_ to use technology which is patented under the FRAND patents. and thus the patent holder needs to license them to you under the FRAND rules... The necessity to implement the standard itself has nothing to do with it...

I could patent some technology in some obscure standard that defines how to send pigeons in cardboard boxes in an efficient way. No way anyone would ever _NEED_ to implement it, but as it is (in my fantasy world) an open standard the patents would be under FRAND rules and I'd have to license them in a fair way...

 

[bbeagle]

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?

Actually, I have no clue what Motorola did to the XBox or PS3. I don't follow those consoles. What did they do - temporarily stop Microsoft or Sony from selling them?

 

[jrswizzle]

In your example - the car would be impounded. Whether you paid for it or not. Stolen goods is stolen goods. Is this the scenario you want to go with?

Sure it would be impounded, but the person who paid for the car wouldn't be the one responsible/sued. And in the car theft scenario we don't know the real thief. In the LTE case, we would - Qualcomm.

I really find it hard to believe how you can't see there is a vendetta here. If the iP5's LTE radio is found to have infringed, Qualcomm would be held responsible and rightfully so. Sure the chip set wouldn't be in the iPhone 5, but that wouldn't stop them from finding another LTE radio to use.

 

[unlinked]

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.

Any particular reason you stopped quoting me before I said

That doesn't apply to patents afaik

 

[jrswizzle]

At the end, it really depends on what the terms were between Qualcomm and Samsung is. But also, why do we all assume that Apple is using a Qualcomm chip? Nothing official yet?

I'd say of everything we know about the iP5, this is the most likely. They've been talking about the Qualcomm chip since the iP4S. Plus who's chip would they be using then? Samsung's?

 

[samcraig]

Sure it would be impounded, but the person who paid for the car wouldn't be the one responsible/sued. And in the car theft scenario we don't know the real thief. In the LTE case, we would - Qualcomm.

I really find it hard to believe how you can't see there is a vendetta here. If the iP5's LTE radio is found to have infringed, Qualcomm would be held responsible and rightfully so. Sure the chip set wouldn't be in the iPhone 5, but that wouldn't stop them from finding another LTE radio to use.

If you believe there is a vendetta - then you must also believe that if Samsung was not found guilty that they wouldn't be suing.

You have no proof it's a vendetta any more that I have proof they would or would not be suing if they had won.

Point is - it's irrelevant WHY they are suing anyway. Isn't it? Who cares why they are suing. The issue is whether or not they have a case. Not what's motivating it.

 

[aerok]

I'd say of everything we know about the iP5, this is the most likely. They've been talking about the Qualcomm chip since the iP4S. Plus who's chip would they be using then? Samsung's?

That would be hillarious if they used Samsung's chip lol.

I guess there is only two LTE chip providers...

 

[bbeagle]

In your example - the car would be impounded. Whether you paid for it or not. Stolen goods is stolen goods. Is this the scenario you want to go with?

I don't think he was referring to someone buying a stolen car, but rather someone buying a car of whom Firestone tires wants you to pay some sort of a license to use their tires, even though you paid Ford for the car. Ford should pay Firestone the license - not YOU.

In Apple's case, the maker of the LTE chip (say Qualcomm) should pay Samsung the license, NOT Apple.

 

[jrswizzle]

That would be hillarious if they used Samsung's chip lol.

I guess there is only two LTE chip providers...

I have no idea how many providers there are, that's why I asked the question. All talk surrounding the iPhone and LTE have pointed to a Qualcomm chip set for launch the end of this year....

I merely threw Samsung in as a joke (as if they would sue Apple over their own chip just to sue Apple).

----------

I don't think he was referring to someone buying a stolen car, but rather someone buying a car of whom Firestone tires wants you to pay some sort of a license to use their tires, even though you paid Ford for the car. Ford should pay Firestone the license - not YOU.

In Apple's case, the maker of the LTE chip (say Qualcomm) should pay Samsung the license, NOT Apple.

Not what I was saying but this is a much better analogy than I had lol

 

[Oletros]

I don't think he was referring to someone buying a stolen car, but rather someone buying a car of whom Firestone tires wants you to pay some sort of a license to use their tires, even though you paid Ford for the car. Ford should pay Firestone the license - not YOU.

In Apple's case, the maker of the LTE chip (say Qualcomm) should pay Samsung the license, NOT Apple.

So, why Apple had to pay Nokia for the 3G patents? OR why Apple has to pay Motorola for the 3G patents like they have agreed in Germany?

 

[samcraig]

[/COLOR]

Not what I was saying but this is a much better analogy than I had lol

I don't mean this to sound condescending - sincerely - but I totally respect your honesty. It's appreciated...

 

[jrswizzle]

If you believe there is a vendetta - then you must also believe that if Samsung was not found guilty that they wouldn't be suing.

You have no proof it's a vendetta any more that I have proof they would or would not be suing if they had won.

Point is - it's irrelevant WHY they are suing anyway. Isn't it? Who cares why they are suing. The issue is whether or not they have a case. Not what's motivating it.

I would agree if they were threatening (as of yet I don't believe they have ACTUALLY filed a suit) to sue the manufacturer infringing. The fact that they want to go after Apple specifically gives off the vibe of posturing.

But you're right. We don't have any evidence at all, so why are we all sitting here speculating?

----------

I'd like to sum up my thoughts very neatly and concisely. I have no evidence to say Samsung does or does not have a case. I am merely stating these thoughts:

1) Samsung's threat to sue APPLE over a technology Apple didn't design or manufacture reeks of posturing because....

2) Apple made Samsung look pretty foolish their last time in court.

3) IF the LTE chip in question is found to be an infringement of Samsung's patents (which as has been stated many times would be a huge oversight on the part of those in charge of the LTE standard further discounting the validity of the Samsung exec's threats), the maker of the chip (presumed to be Qualcomm) should be held responsible.

That is all