I think I know why Apple is suing Samsung

[mark28]

No, it doesn't (I even bold-faced it for you ). What happened previously does not relate to anything that previously happened between MS and Apple.

If you blatantly rip off someone's product, you can sue their ass. Why people think that's somehow abnormal is beyond me.

What makes you think Samsung ripped off Apple?

Samsung had their smartphone earlier on the market than the first iPhone. The first iPhone was released in June 2007 on the market, while the Samsung phone was released february 2007 on the market.

 

[Tarzanman]

What makes you think Samsung ripped off Apple?

Samsung had their smartphone earlier on the market than the first iPhone. The first iPhone was released in June 2007 on the market, while the Samsung phone was released february 2007 on the market.

He is talking about how similar Touchwiz is in appearance to iOS and how similar the iPhone 2/3 is at a glance to the Galaxy S.

In my opinion, Apple's problem is that it isn't illegal to make something look similar to a competing product. I don't think its a winnable lawsuit. I think Apple knows this, and I think they are using the pressure to leverage better deals or more IP out of their partner, Samsung.

 

[ped]

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.

"AMOLED" means nothing - it's a brand name and a WAY of laying out an OLED screen. I've already told you Samsung is only able to make these screens, using these techniques and materials, because they license the ability and purchase the materials from Universal Display. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by arguing about the branding term "AMOLED" or "SAMOLED".

 

[Tarzanman]

"AMOLED" means nothing - it's a brand name and a WAY of laying out an OLED screen. I've already told you Samsung is only able to make these screens, using these techniques and materials, because they license the ability and purchase the materials from Universal Display. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by arguing about the branding term "AMOLED" or "SAMOLED".

You're kidding, right? Maybe it is science and technology that you don't understand.

So according to your logic, "an engine is just an engine" since they all burn fuel to move pistons or spin turbines? A Pratt & Whitney afterburning turbine in an F-14 is "just laid out differently" from the diesel engine in a Volkswagen?

Wow. If that is what you really believe then you really have no business posting anything on this thread.

Fact: There are patents on AMOLED (that are specific to AMOLED) and Samsung hold them. Deal with it.

 

[ped]

You're kidding, right? Maybe it is science and technology that you don't understand.

So according to your logic, "an engine is just an engine" since they all burn fuel to move pistons or spin turbines? A Pratt & Whitney afterburning turbine in an F-14 is "just laid out differently" from the diesel engine in a Volkswagen?

Wow. If that is what you really believe then you really have no business posting anything on this thread.

Fact: There are patents on AMOLED (that are specific to AMOLED) and Samsung hold them. Deal with it.

Here's a way to demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about. Using just these "AMOLED patents" that you say Samsung has (as opposed to simple trademarks) if Universal Display cut off their IP and materials what EXACTLY could Samsung do using just their own IP? Be as specific as you can.

 

[Tarzanman]

Here's a way to demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about. Using just these "AMOLED patents" that you say Samsung has (as opposed to simple trademarks) if Universal Display cut off their IP and materials what EXACTLY could Samsung do using just their own IP? Be as specific as you can.

Why, they could do exactly what I alluded to in my first post. License the tech out to other foundries who want to manufacture AMOLED panels.

What Apple might be able to do is license the technology and manufacturing process from Samsung and find their own factory to produce them. Obviously, Apple cannot do this without Samsung allowing it.

Remember that? You know... the entire focus of this thread? Yeah, seems like it was weeks ago, eh?

 

[ped]

Why, they could do exactly what I alluded to in my first post. License the tech out to other foundries who want to manufacture AMOLED panels.

No, they couldn't, because producing those displays involves Universal Display's patented methods AND materials.

Remember that? You know... the entire focus of this thread? Yeah, seems like it was weeks ago, eh?

I remember - you're still wrong. Even *Samsung* cannot produce their OLED screens without Universal Display's OK to do so. So, as I said in my first post, I'm unsure whether Samsung has sublicensing rights, which would prevent Apple setting up another factory under Samsung's auspices to produce AMOLED screens.

 

[Tarzanman]

No, they couldn't, because producing those displays involves Universal Display's patented methods AND materials.

If you think that Universal Display is the only company in the world that can make displays, then you're wrong. Samsung is the currently the market leader in this category, closely followed by LG.

If Universal Display was as awesome as you claim them to be, then they would be making billions of dollars by making these screens themselves and selling them to Apple, HTC, Motorola, Samsung, Kyocera, Sony, etc etc etc.
They don't. All of these customers go Samsung and LG for displays.

I remember - you're still wrong. Even *Samsung* cannot produce their OLED screens without Universal Display's OK to do so.

You keep saying that, but it doesn't ring true. You've tried to prove that with links, but NOTHING you've provided shows that Universal Display has anything to do with AMOLEDs.

So, as I said in my first post, I'm unsure whether Samsung has sublicensing rights, which would prevent Apple setting up another factory under Samsung's auspices to produce AMOLED screens.

Not only are you unsure, but you are incorrect as well. Accept that fact and get on with your life.

 

[ped]

If you think that Universal Display is the only company in the world that can make displays, then you're wrong. Samsung is the currently the market leader in this category, closely followed by LG.

If Universal Display was as awesome as you claim them to be, then they would be making billions of dollars by making these screens themselves and selling them to Apple, HTC, Motorola, Samsung, Kyocera, Sony, etc etc etc.
They don't. All of these customers go Samsung and LG for displays.


You keep saying that, but it doesn't ring true. You've tried to prove that with links, but NOTHING you've provided shows that Universal Display has anything to do with AMOLEDs.

And the free education continues. Universal Display is an intellectual property company, not a manufacturer. They have their own research team plus partnerships with Princeton University, the University of Michigan, and the University of Southern California. All research on methods and materials that comes from any of those sources becomes the licensable property of Universal Display.

What's it going to take for you to admit you're wrong that Universal Display has nothing to do with AMOLEDs, especially as they relate to Samsung? Oh, how about this excerpt from Goldman Sachs' stock report on Universal Display from just this last Friday where it discusses the fact that neither SMD (Samsung), nor anyone else, can manufacture phosphorescent OLED displays without Universal Display's consent because they own the materials and all the IP around producing phosphorescent OLED displays? And guess what SAMOLED/SAMOLED+ displays are? Yep, you guessed it - phosphorescent OLED displays. Samsung is Universal's biggest customer.

I guess we're done here... score another one for knowledge. Did you really think I was guessing when I already told you I have a ton of stock in this company?

 

[DeathChill]

Jesus Tarzanman, it's quite obvious you are talking out of your ass. ped has gone above and beyond to show you that you're completely wrong.

 

[Tarzanman]

No, all he's done is repeated the same thing over and over again. He can't prove his case because he's incorrect (and he knows it).

OLED and AMOLED are not the same thing. He knows it. I know it. You know it, and the entire industry knows it... which is why *Apple went to SAMSUNG* to talk about about AMOLED and not Universal Display.

*Just think about it.* Why would Apple try to make a deal with one of their biggest competitors (whom they are suing, by the way, and whom has a shortage of these AMOLED dispalys) if they could just turn around and get the technology & materials they need from another source?

As I have said a billion times already on this thread: Universal Display has absolutely ZERO patents on AMOLED. It is Samsung's technology and it is they that hold all the patents and can choose whether to license the technology or just manufacture all of the AMOLED displays themselves.

Those are the facts. Accept it.

 

[BlaqkAudio]

No, all he's done is repeated the same thing over and over again. He can't prove his case because he's incorrect (and he knows it).

OLED and AMOLED are not the same thing. He knows it. I know it. You know it, and the entire industry knows it... which is why *Apple went to SAMSUNG* to talk about about AMOLED and not Universal Display.

*Just think about it.* Why would Apple try to make a deal with one of their biggest competitors (whom they are suing, by the way, and whom has a shortage of these AMOLED dispalys) if they could just turn around and get the technology & materials they need from another source?

As I have said a billion times already on this thread: Universal Display has absolutely ZERO patents on AMOLED. It is Samsung's technology and it is they that hold all the patents and can choose whether to license the technology or just manufacture all of the AMOLED displays themselves.

Those are the facts. Accept it.

Wow. Continuing to show how clueless you are. OLED can either be passive matrix (PMOLED) or active matrix (AMOLED). AMOLED is a type of OLED.

Why would Apple go to Samsung if they're competitors? Let's completely ignore the fact that Apple bought over $7 billion in components from Samsung, including the A4/A5 processors and NAND flash memory that goes into the iPhone/iPad.

 

[Tarzanman]

Wow. Continuing to show how clueless you are. OLED can either be passive matrix (PMOLED) or active matrix (AMOLED). AMOLED is a type of OLED.

You should go back and re-read the thread. Really. As far as patents go, you can make one key change to the technology and patent it yourself without having to pay royalties (see my engine analogy). Happens all the time and that is what Samsung did with AMOLED.

Why would Apple go to Samsung if they're competitors? Let's completely ignore the fact that Apple bought over $7 billion in components from Samsung, including the A4/A5 processors and NAND flash memory that goes into the iPhone/iPad.

Yeah, I already know this. You however, are missing the point. Go back and read this thread.

 

[DeathChill]

You should go back and re-read the thread. Really. As far as patents go, you can make one key change to the technology and patent it yourself without having to pay royalties (see my engine analogy). Happens all the time and that is what Samsung did with AMOLED.

You can't be this thick-headed. ped supplied a mountain of evidence (including reports from this past Friday!) and you've done nothing to prove anything. Do you have ANY proof of what you're saying? ped has already supplied so much information to disprove you.

 

[goosnarrggh]

You should go back and re-read the thread. Really. As far as patents go, you can make one key change to the technology and patent it yourself without having to pay royalties (see my engine analogy). Happens all the time and that is what Samsung did with AMOLED.


Yeah, I already know this. You however, are missing the point. Go back and read this thread.

Note: the "key change" you make cannot be just any change.

You mush change something (or some group of things) that is truly key in making the new invention fall outside the scope of any valid claims made in the original patent. Did Samsung actually accomplish this?

Or did Samsung actually invent a process to improve the results of the original patent, whilst still falling inside the scope of the original patent's claims? In that case, then in any areas where there's overlap between the original patent and the new patent, then the original patent takes precedence; the new patent can only prevent others from infringing on the improvements. But the overlapping basic claims from which it is derived are protected by the original patent -- and everybody, including the new patent filer, is still responsible to abide by the original patent owner's terms for making use of any overlapping claims.

 

[BlaqkAudio]

You should go back and re-read the thread. Really. As far as patents go, you can make one key change to the technology and patent it yourself without having to pay royalties (see my engine analogy). Happens all the time and that is what Samsung did with AMOLED.


Yeah, I already know this. You however, are missing the point. Go back and read this thread.

And it's called Super AMOLED/Super AMOLED Plus, which coincidentally =/= AMOLED. Again, Super AMOLED (Plus) is a type of AMOLED.

Which is more financially viable: licensing, purchasing materials, and researching their own variant of AMOLED, or Apple making a purchasing agreement with a manufacturer that already has created a superior variant?

 

[Kariya]

lol...you guys must be new to MR if you really think you can win a debate with Tarzanman...you're better off arguing with a brick wall.

 

[Tarzanman]

Note: the "key change" you make cannot be just any change.

You mush change something (or some group of things) that is truly key in making the new invention fall outside the scope of any valid claims made in the original patent. Did Samsung actually accomplish this?

This is how the patent system is supposed to work. In practice, the definition or validity of a "key change" is left up to the examiner. If you google "AMOLED" and "patent" then ONE company keeps coming up in the results (hint: it is *not* Universal Display). Patents are public knowledge in this country. PED has posted a lot of information, *none* of which have been any AMOLED patents held by Universal (because they don't have any).

You can't be this thick-headed. ped supplied a mountain of evidence (including reports from this past Friday!) and you've done nothing to prove anything. Do you have ANY proof of what you're saying? ped has already supplied so much information to disprove you.

Ped supplied a mountain of evidence which has nothing to do with original argument. Like i said, re-read the thread.

And it's called Super AMOLED/Super AMOLED Plus, which coincidentally =/= AMOLED. Again, Super AMOLED (Plus) is a type of AMOLED.

Which is more financially viable: licensing, purchasing materials, and researching their own variant of AMOLED, or Apple making a purchasing agreement with a manufacturer that already has created a superior variant?

You've missed the point. Ped said is that Samsung cannot license the technology for a 3rd party to manufacture AMOLED/Super AMOLED because they supposedly do not own the patents governing AMOLED/Super AMOLED displays.

I told him that he is wrong, and he supplied a bunch of documents about OLED (*not AMOLEd/Super AMOLED) and Universal Display.

Basically, he originally said one thing but is arguing something else. Misdirection because he has apparently realized (after all his web searching) that Universal does not own any AMOLED/Super AMOLED patents, which makes his original statement incorrect.

Everything else is bellyaching because his pride is hurt, i suppose.

 

[ped]

You're wrong. Samsung's AMOLED/SAMOLED screens cannot be made without PANL's patented techniques and materials. It doesn't matter whether you think Samsung created a new patent on top of that (not that you've demonstrated any such thing).

Quoting directly from the Goldman report I referenced above:

SMD's ongoing investments in next generation displays based on Universal's OLED technology

They are referring to the US $7 Billion Samsung has invested in a new gen 5.5 and gen 8 OLED factories designed to produce OLED displays using Universal's methods and materials.

New Gen 5.5 factory online now (2 months ahead of schedule) - http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1305277969

Gen 8 investment - http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-invest-48-billion-oleds-2011

 

[Tarzanman]

You're wrong. Samsung's AMOLED/SAMOLED screens cannot be made without PANL's patented techniques and materials. It doesn't matter whether you think Samsung created a new patent on top of that (not that you've demonstrated any such thing).

Quoting directly from the Goldman report I referenced above:



They are referring to the US $7 Billion Samsung has invested in a new gen 5.5 and gen 8 OLED factories designed to produce OLED displays using Universal's methods and materials.

New Gen 5.5 factory online now (2 months ahead of schedule) - http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1305277969

Gen 8 investment - http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-invest-48-billion-oleds-2011

Unfortunately, being 'based' on one technology does not necessarily mean that you have to pay royalties or license that technology. Samsung also could not make AMOLEDs without the project controls to handle their processes equipment like SCADA or other proprietary solutions (Siemens, etc), but they certainly don't those companies royalties and it isn't as if they couldn't use Rockwell automation equipment instead.

Your supposition doesn't hold any water. Absolutely nothing you have provided or linked to would preclude Samsung single-handedly allowing other companies to manufacture their own AMOLED displays.

How many ways must it be said before you understand?

 

[ped]

Unfortunately, being 'based' on one technology does not necessarily mean that you have to pay royalties or license that technology. Samsung also could not make AMOLEDs without the project controls to handle their processes equipment like SCADA or other proprietary solutions (Siemens, etc), but they certainly don't those companies royalties and it isn't as if they couldn't use Rockwell automation equipment instead.

Your supposition doesn't hold any water. Absolutely nothing you have provided or linked to would preclude Samsung single-handedly allowing other companies to manufacture their own AMOLED displays.

Of course I did - the fact they have to license the production methods and buy the materials (RGB organic materials) from Universal Display means that Samsung doesn't own "AMOLED" or "SAMOLED/+" - they own the moniker and the profits off them over and above the royalties and payments they make to Universal. How you think you can win an argument about a company your debate opponent had to inform you even existed is beyond me. You're far worse than ignorant; at least an ignorant person can learn.

 

[Tarzanman]

- I showed you the contract between Samsung and Universal Display that allows Samsung to produce using Universal's methods and PHOLED (phosphorescent) materials. That contract is still in effect.

That contract predates AMOLED screens. As such, you can't say whether it applies to AMOLED or just regular OLED screens (which Samsung also manufactures). Wishful thinking on your part.

- I showed you that Samsung pays royalties to Universal.

Yes, but for what? None of the contracts mentions AMOLED. As I said before, the only thing these contracts mention is run-of-the-mill OLED. That isn't the proof you need to prove your statement. Why do you not understand that?

- I showed you a stock report on Universal from LAST WEEK discussing the fact it is impossible to build phosphorescent OLEDs without paying Universal. And that shows that Samsung is one of those customers.

Lol. Emphasis on stock report. Not a technical document, and not a patent. A guide written by an broker for potential investors. Do you know what else uses phosphorescent coatings? CRTs and other types of rear projection televisions. Samsung makes those too (as well as normal OLED screens).

Keep looking.

 

[BlaqkAudio]

Yes, but for what? None of the contracts mentions AMOLED. As I said before, the only thing these contracts mention is run-of-the-mill OLED. That isn't the proof you need to prove your statement. Why do you not understand that?

Wow. For the last time, AMOLED is a type of OLED. Let's say that together, AMOLED is a type of OLED. There's no such thing as "run-of-the-mill OLED."

 

[Tarzanman]

Wow. For the last time, AMOLED is a type of OLED. Let's say that together, AMOLED is a type of OLED. There's no such thing as "run-of-the-mill OLED."

Um, no. That is like saying there aren't big differences between LCD screens.

This

is very different from this

both are LCD displays.

According to ped's logic, a patent for one automatically covers the other.

Not so.

 

[ped]

Tarzanman is hopeless - worst case of ignorance I've ever seen in a forum debate. And I've been debating on forums for a decade and a half (my Delphi ID is 12 years old), so that's saying something! This guy thinks he knows more about Universal Display (a company he didn't even know EXISTED before this thread when I told him) and Samsung's relationship than Goldman Sachs, who:

- Underwote Universal Display's 5 million-share stock offering in March.

- Created one of the most-extensive stock research reports on Universal Display ever (35+ pages) created, in which they make clear that Samsung and others are not able to make OLED phosphorescent displays (that have ZERO to do with PHOSPHORS which you are discussing) without Universal Display. Phosphorescent OLEDs are the only method that can produce long-lasting OLED displays that are also power-efficient, and UDC owns that intellectual property and the materials used to create it.

http://www.universaldisplay.com/default.asp?contentID=604