Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I think I know why Apple is suing Samsung
- Thread starter Tarzanman
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nice little fiction story you wrote there but let me know later on if/when you get any facts
http://www.koreaherald.com/business/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20110525000755
That's all a good theory, except that I don't think Samsung has the rights to sublicense the manufacture of OLED displays. Samsung licenses that ability, and buys the materials, from US company Universal Display, who owns 1,089 patents around OLED materials and production methods. Samsung pays them a license fee (and materials cost) for every screen they make. So for Apple to setup another factory to produce they would almost certainly need to get with PANL (Universal Display's ticker symbol on NASDAQ) to get the OK and setup the licensing.
the OP posted it on the internet, where somebody, somewhere will have an opinion. I am so sorry to inform you that you will find people who do no agree with his or your opinion.
I think the OP's idea is silly and anybody who has any business experience knows you don't leverage suppliers by suing them into submission.
You have to relax man. This is macrumors. There's so much stupid around that's not even funny.
And OMG when somebody uses the word "in my opinion"... Then you have lawyers, university teachers, developers and government workers writing how stupid he is just by having that idea. None of them wil actually add any reason or merit to the conversation but post is out there and they feel special...
As for the OT I think It actually makes sense especially with the way screen market is going and it's constant supply issues.
Oh really? I worked for one of Europe largest banks and quite often you could see use of the so called "legal" way simply to achieve certain agreement.
As long as it's legal - you are free to do what ever you're pleased to do while pursuing your goal.
And just because YOU don't see it valid you shouldn't generalize and make YOUR statement somewhat more important by dragging billions of people with business experience into it. From my perspective (and business experience) your words show nothing less that lack of experience on your side.
Nice try, but you're most likely wrong. The only way to verify is to read the patents (which I'm not going to do)... but there are plenty of ways that your theory could be incorrect:
* Universal Display might have 1,089 patents in the USA, none of which might be valid in South Korea where Samsung manufactures these panels
*Universal Display's patents are probably on regular OLED technology (which has been around for more than 7 years) or maybe even obsolete methods of manufacturing. Samsung has come out with AMOLED and Super AMOLED. Most companies don't introduce technology as "theirs" when someone else owns the patents (except for Apple maybe, lol).
A quick google search on the keywords AMOLED PATENTS returned results for Korea and Taiwan. I am not going read through countless boring patent filings, but I am pretty certain that Samsung owns the requisite AMOLED patents. If they did not, then other manufacturers would have picked up the slack last year and started manufacturing the screens already since there was a worldwide shortage.
Thanks for adding to the discussion, but you should think your theories through a little bit more. I don't think they ring true
http://www.isuppli.com/Display-Mate...ges-Cause-Concerns-in-Smart-Phone-Market.aspx
The only patents Samsung probably holds are those for Super AMOLED. We won't see any non-Samsung devices with Super AMOLED until at least 2012 according to the article.
"Nice try", and I should "think it through" more, huh?. ROFL! I'm an investor in Universal Display and I'm not guessing or "theorizing" when I tell you that Universal Display is the company that licenses OLED technology capabilities to Samsung. Samsung is their largest customer and has been paying them royalties for every OLED screen they produce for a long time. LG and AU Optronics are additional customers who are also ramping up to produce OLED screens using Universal Display's technology. ALL variations of Samsung AMOLED/SAMOLED/SAMOLED+/etc are PANL's technology. In addition Samsung ALSO purchases the phosphorescent OLED (red, green, blue) materials from Universal Display. Samsung is currently using PHOLED red and green and using a less-efficient (but longer-lasting) fluorescent blue from another supplier. It's literally impossible for Samsung to make the SAMOLED/SAMOLED+ screens without this material which is exclusively PANL's.
As for your insinuation that patents in the US don't apply to Samsung because they're in South Korea where do you think the largest markets for cellphones ARE? In the Western world including the US/Europe, in which they would be illegal to sell if they were manufactured in violation of US patents.
Believe me you have no clue how much I know about this market!
A Patent Giant Tightens Its Grip
http://www.fool.com/investing/high-growth/2011/03/11/a-patent-giant-tightens-its-grip.aspx
And if all of THAT wasn't enough, here's the contract between Universal Display and Samsung:
http://agreements.realdealdocs.com/Patent-License-Agreement/OLED-PATENT-LICENSE-AGREEMENT-857089/
And... the rest is left as an exercise for the reader...
Last edited:
Schooling me that my opinion is wrong, how arrogant you are.
Yes, I didn't proof-read, people make mistakes. Thank you for handling the situation so maturely.
Moving on, what I meant to say was that a one companies behaviour towards another doesn't really relate to how they'll deal with another third party. It can give an indication, but not a particularly clear one when circumstances are different.
Any who, here's a lovely table showing the similarities between TouchWiz and iOS. It's interesting that as Samsung changed the UI to look less like Apple's, they then copied other elements in the process.
Because theories can be wrong. His is. Just because its his theory (not opinion, but those can be wrong as well) - doesn't mean people have to play along and act like it could be correct. It isn't.
Good for you...but it doesn't change the fact that you absolutely have no idea what you're talking about.
Self-educate more, post less.
You're the one with the skewed perspective.
You worked for a bank that sued it's partners into doing what it wanted and you think this is a sound business strategy? Wow. F over our partners when they don't agree with us.
Do you punch the guy behind the counter at Mcdonalds when they don't get your order right? What kind of silly theory is this? Conduct business with brutality? Yeah I guess I don't know anything about business. I always thought you sued people when they defamed you, stole your ideas and or tried to hurt your business. Suing someone so you can corner their production for your own products? You really support this? This is acceptable?
Who are you, so I know to never do business with you.
Give me a ****ing break Donald Trump.
Your example is a fail right from the start.
Direct retail customer/seller behavior has nothing to do with multi million "small print" wars. There is no let's make it nice. There's only lets win by all means necessary.
You seem like a great idealist here where the law always helps the poor. Go to family court and see what's going on how often a child is used as a bargain just so one of the parents can get what he/she wants. Sucks as ******g hell but my work leads me to different places and I have seen a lot.
Get out from under that rock. You'll have better survival chances in the future. Do the right thing but don't be a fool.
Actually, your links and your reply demonstrate exactly what you know about this market. Answer: You don't know jack squat. Apparently having an e*trade account and trading some stock doesn't make one a market expert. Who knew?
Besides the fact that this article doesn't mention Samsung AT ALL, it describes Universal Display as a patent troll.
Not only is it not enough, but if you check the date of this agreement, it is from 2005. That's right, 2005. The technology Samsung licensed predates the original iPhone by 2 years. That is 6 years ago. I hate to point out the obvious, but AMOLED is a much newer technology than regular OLED (as I have already said), and every AMOLED patent I have googled mentions Samsung by name.
Hmm, sounds like someone doesn't know as much as they claim to
.Reading, you should really learn how to do it properly before you end up putting your foot in your mouth on some forum. Oops, too late!
I eagerly await your reply and any evidence you have that your patent troll company has managed to weasel its way into any of Samsung's AMOLED IP.
Actually, your links and your reply demonstrate exactly what you know about this market. Answer: You don't know jack squat. Apparently having an e*trade account and trading some stock doesn't make one a market expert. Who knew?
Besides the fact that this article doesn't mention Samsung AT ALL, it describes Universal Display as a patent troll.
It doesn't?
Just quit while you're behind...
You really don't know the difference between someone debating you and educating you, do you?
The Q4 2010 earnings call from Universal Display, specifically mentioning licensees Samsung, LG and others:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/258...discusses-q4-2010-results-earnings-transcript
Samsung and PANL's contract expired mid-2010 and they've been doing 3-month extensions to keep Samsung producing ever since as they work out a new contract. With every comment you make it clear you have no idea what you're talking about and are too lacking in humility to realize how silly you appear wen you argue with me about PANL's relationship with Samsung when you didn't even know PANL existed (much less had a relationship with Samsung) before I told you.
Actually, your links and your reply demonstrate exactly what you know about this market. Answer: You don't know jack squat. Apparently having an e*trade account and trading some stock doesn't make one a market expert. Who knew?
And as for the "etrade" comment I have nearly 5,500 shares of PANL stock (worth around a quarter of a million dollars), which is why I find it funny that you're going to inform me about them and their relationship to Samsung when you didn't even know they existed until I told you yesterday.
Universal Display has High Earning Potential
http://beaconnews.suntimes.com/busi...ersal-display-has-high-earning-potential.html
Last edited by a moderator:
That's ridiculous. Either Apple has a case against Samsung or they don't. If they have a case, then they sue because they have a case, not because they want some deal. And if they don't have a case, then suing won't get them a deal. So whether Apple has a case against Samsung are not, you are wrong either way.
I read the wall of text, but I honestly do not have the energy (nor desire) to do a point by point to defend my opinion.
The big paragraph you posted said a lot about the future of Samsung using AMOLED going forward, and OLED in general but I did not see any phrases drawing the connection between Universal Patent Troll and AMOLED. If its there, bold-face it or underline it.
Samsung does make more than one type of device and not all of their devices use AMOLED/Super AMOLED. (TV's, cheap phones, etc). If they do have an existing agreement with Universal Patent Troll, then it would cover those non-AMOLED devices. Not the high-resolution Super AMOLED that everyone is trying to incorporate into their phones and tablets. As such, it has no bearing on my original statement.
Please come forward with a definitive statement/proof which supports your supposition that Samsung does not own their own AMOLED/Super AMOLED patents (which is the reason you give for Samsung not being able to license it to anyone).
As I have pointed out already, an agreement from 2005 cannot possibly cover AMOLED because AMOLED had not been invented yet. No amount of hand-waving or changing the subject changes this central fact.
You can poke fun at me for not having an e*trade account like you do, but at the end of the day it is beside the point you have unsuccessfully tried to make.
I said that Apple would use their lawsuit to leverage Samsung into either providing Super AMOLED screens or providing the means for Apple to produce AMOLED screens. 2 weeks after my prediction, a news story surfaces about Apple going to meetwith Samsung about AMOLED displays. Seems like the circumstantial evidence is leaning heavily in my favor.
Please, PLEASE dig up any information you have that directly contradicts this statement I made:
..and put it on this thread. I won't hold my breath
The big paragraph you posted said a lot about the future of Samsung using AMOLED going forward, and OLED in general but I did not see any phrases drawing the connection between Universal Patent Troll and AMOLED. If its there, bold-face it or underline it.
Samsung does make more than one type of device and not all of their devices use AMOLED/Super AMOLED. (TV's, cheap phones, etc). If they do have an existing agreement with Universal Patent Troll, then it would cover those non-AMOLED devices. Not the high-resolution Super AMOLED that everyone is trying to incorporate into their phones and tablets. As such, it has no bearing on my original statement.
Please come forward with a definitive statement/proof which supports your supposition that Samsung does not own their own AMOLED/Super AMOLED patents (which is the reason you give for Samsung not being able to license it to anyone).
As I have pointed out already, an agreement from 2005 cannot possibly cover AMOLED because AMOLED had not been invented yet. No amount of hand-waving or changing the subject changes this central fact.
You can poke fun at me for not having an e*trade account like you do, but at the end of the day it is beside the point you have unsuccessfully tried to make.
I said that Apple would use their lawsuit to leverage Samsung into either providing Super AMOLED screens or providing the means for Apple to produce AMOLED screens. 2 weeks after my prediction, a news story surfaces about Apple going to meetwith Samsung about AMOLED displays. Seems like the circumstantial evidence is leaning heavily in my favor.
Please, PLEASE dig up any information you have that directly contradicts this statement I made:
..and put it on this thread. I won't hold my breath
Spare me your backpeddling. Yesterday you denied they had anything to do with each other; today you're trying to convince me that the contract I already posted showing you wrong isn't somehow the SAME CONTRACT they keep renewing.
I'll summarize it for you: Every OLED screen Samsung makes is made using Universal Display's technology and materials and results in them paying Universal Display a royalty and materials payment.
And as for using OLED for tablets, Gabelli's analyst report on Universal Display (issued a BUY recommendation) updated TODAY, had this to say:
Thats a general analysis of the OLED market, and certainly not the evidence I have asked you time and time again to produce. My company makes forecasts too about our products and similar products that our competitors make. It doesn't mean that we have our hand in every technology related to the markets we sell in.
What you call 'backpedaling' I call "not getting distracted by irrelevant, extraneous arguments".
Re-read my last post. My central point still stands and you still have yet to produce anything to refute it.
Google clearly isn't working for you... why don't you check Bing or Yahoo for the information you can't find (cuz it doesn't exist).
What you call 'backpedaling' I call "not getting distracted by irrelevant, extraneous arguments".
Re-read my last post. My central point still stands and you still have yet to produce anything to refute it.
Google clearly isn't working for you... why don't you check Bing or Yahoo for the information you can't find (cuz it doesn't exist).
No, it isn't a general analysis of the market; it's a specific analysis of the market, as it relates to Universal Display (and lists those companies that pay it - Samsung, LG, AUO, etc).
I'm done educating you - it's definitely a 'pearls before swine' thing with you.
Either way, it is still an analysis that contains *none* of the information on patents or evidence that you have claimed exists (but haven't been able to provide, despite a lot of searching, copying and pasting).
Samsung owns AMOLED. Admit it, move on, and learn to do your research *before* you open your mouth next time.