I think I know why Apple is suing Samsung

[BlaqkAudio]

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

This
Image

is very different from this
Image

both are LCD displays.

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

Not so.

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/oled3.htm

Please tell me where "run-of-the-mill OLED" falls under.

 

[ped]

http://www.universaldisplay.com/default.asp?contentID=617

PARTNERS AND CUSTOMERS

Universal Display has entered into more than 30 business agreements with manufacturers in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, China and the U.S. These relationships include companies such as AU Optronics, Chimei Innolux, DuPont Displays, Konica Minolta, LG Display, Samsung SMD, Seiko Epson, Sony, Showa Denko, and Tohoku Pioneer.

Since commercial introduction in 2003, Universal Display’s technology and materials have been used in a number of applications, including:

Tohoku Pioneer Corporation, a subsidiary of Pioneer Corporation, introduced an OLED cell phone sub-display containing one of our red PHOLED materials in 2003.

AU Optronics Corporation introduced the first AMOLED cell phone display using one of our red PHOLED materials in 2006. This marked the beginning of the AMOLED wave with phosphorescence.

Samsung SMD introduced AMOLED products using our technology and PHOLED materials in early 2007. These displays have been built into a number of consumer products.

Universal Display is distinguished not only by our relationships with a number of leading OLED manufacturers, but also by governmental agencies that have awarded research contracts to support our development of state-of-the-art OLED technologies. These include research for:

U.S. Department of Defense through the Army Research Laboratories (ARL), the U.S. Army Communication Electronics Research and Development Engineering Center (CERDEC), the U.S. Naval Research Laboratories (NRL) and U.S. Air Force Research Laboratories to develop flexible OLED displays using our proprietary FOLED® technology.

U.S. Department of Energy through its Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Solid-State Lighting (SSL) programs to develop our proprietary OLED technologies for energy- and cost-efficient white lighting.

 

[Tarzanman]

http://www.universaldisplay.com/default.asp?contentID=617

That makes your argument stronger, but regrettably, still falls short of proof that your statement is correct. The analysis doesn't say that any patents or IP are being licensed for AMOLED production. Technology is a generic term. For example, if one of the Samsung design engineers used Autocad or Inventor to design the glass assembly enclosure for the display then Autodesk could rightfully claim that their technology was also being used for AMOLED manufacture.

Here is your original statement:

That's all a good theory, except that I don't think Samsung has the rights to sublicense the manufacture of OLED displays.

Besides your lumping regular OLED and AMOLED into the same category, you claim that Samsung cannot license their technology. [url="https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/12692775/]See post #70[/url] for an explanation of why 'use of technology' does not equal a restriction on licensing it out to others.

The long and short of it is that if Apple, or all of these other manufacturers (like HTC) who were looking for AMOLED displays during the shortage could have gotten them elsewhere, then they would have done so. Instead, they had to use LCD and SLCD displays during the 2009-2010 AMOLED shortage.

There is a reason that Samsung is the ONLY source for these parts. They own the patents to make them....otherwise a ton of foundries in China would have switched their production lines over last year and made a fortune on the shortage.

Who wants to buy this analysis and prove it one way or the other, once and for all?
http://www.displaybank.com/eng/report/report_show.php?id=776

 

[BlaqkAudio]

There is a reason that Samsung is the ONLY source for these parts. They own the patents to make them....otherwise a ton of foundries in China would have switched their production lines over last year and made a fortune on the shortage.

http://www.isuppli.com/Display-Mate...ges-Cause-Concerns-in-Smart-Phone-Market.aspx

If the demand for AMOLEDs is so strong, why aren’t other manufacturers building production facilities and starting production more rapidly?

First, AMOLED is a newer technology compared to the well-established AMLCD, whose fabs are mature and mostly depreciated in full. This currently gives AMLCD fixed-cost advantages compared to AMOLED fabs that have been around only for the last few years. Second, newer technology means that establishing manufacturing processes could be prone to yield losses, leading to slower production ramp-ups. Third, with AMLCD improving its performance and simultaneously exerting pressure on display prices, competing with the moving performance and price target of LCDs not only is challenging for a new technology like AMOLED but also delays return on large investments.

I already posted this explanation, but of course, you choose to selectively ignore anything that opposes your theory.

 

[ped]

That makes your argument stronger, but regrettably, still falls short of proof that your statement is correct. The analysis doesn't say that any patents or IP are being licensed for AMOLED production. Technology is a generic term. For example, if one of the Samsung design engineers used Autocad or Inventor to design the glass assembly enclosure for the display then Autodesk could rightfully claim that their technology was also being used for AMOLED manufacture.

Here is your original statement:


Besides your lumping regular OLED and AMOLED into the same category, you claim that Samsung cannot license their technology. [url="https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/12692775/]See post #70[/url] for an explanation of why 'use of technology' does not equal a restriction on licensing it out to others.

The long and short of it is that if Apple, or all of these other manufacturers (like HTC) who were looking for AMOLED displays during the shortage could have gotten them elsewhere, then they would have done so. Instead, they had to use LCD and SLCD displays during the 2009-2010 AMOLED shortage.

There is a reason that Samsung is the ONLY source for these parts. They own the patents to make them....otherwise a ton of foundries in China would have switched their production lines over last year and made a fortune on the shortage.

Who wants to buy this analysis and prove it one way or the other, once and for all?
http://www.displaybank.com/eng/report/report_show.php?id=776

I don't know why, but you can't seem to get it through your head that Samsung is in the position they are WRT OLED (AMOLED/etc) *because* they setup a licensing deal with Universal. Samsung's displays wouldn't exist and cannot be made without Universal Displayss patented methods and materials all of which Samsung has been, and is currently buying.

 

[blubyu]

Can you two please keep going? I like watching Tarzanman get his ass handed to him every time he posts

 

[ped]

Can you two please keep going? I like watching Tarzanman get his ass handed to him every time he posts

It is kind of amusing, if not more than a little tiring. The guy doesn't know when he's wrong.

 

[Tarzanman]

Really?

http://corporate.lexisnexis.com/new...lectual-property/cat200003_doc1429581713.html

Let me sum it up for you 'experts' (even though you already know all this, right?)

Samsung, LG enjoy major tech break
By Kim Yoo-chul

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) ruled against Universal Display Corporation (UDC) of the United States in another patent suit filed there after its phosphorescence (PH) material patent was invalidated in February.

The latest ruling from the JPO means that all three critical PHOLED material patents formerly owned by the Universal Display have been declared void.

"UDC lost the recent court battle in Japan, while previously as of March 23 two of its other material patents were invalidated. This is quite significant for South Korean OLED markers because it means that local firms can manufacture PHOLED materials without paying royalties," said a fund manager from a European based investment bank in Seoul

Hmm, seems like Samsung can do whatever it wants with AMOLED, eh? Shocker, that. Incidentally, it seems that there is more than one source for the phosphors that UDC sells (Yttrium, Gadolinium, and Europium borates among others).


-EDIT-
By the way, I found this after precisely ten seconds of googling. Feel free to keep digging on my behalf, but you probably won't like what you find.

 

[ped]

Really?

http://corporate.lexisnexis.com/new...lectual-property/cat200003_doc1429581713.html

Let me sum it up for you 'experts' (even though you already know all this, right?)



Hmm, seems like Samsung can do whatever it wants with AMOLED, eh? Shocker, that. Incidentally, it seems that there is more than one source for the phosphors that UDC sells (Yttrium, Gadolinium, and Europium borates among others).


-EDIT-
By the way, I found this after precisely ten seconds of googling. Feel free to keep digging on my behalf, but you probably won't like what you find.

No they can't do "whatever they want" (and I see you're finally acknowledging they can't make the displays without PANL's say so). The Japan court invalidated a total of 3 patents (out of over 1200) and none of the three have to do with the basic patents for phosphorescent OLED emission which are valid until 2018. In addition even if the Japan high IP court upholds the invalidation of those three patents, that only means that products could be produced, sold and used in Japan (nowhere else). What electronics company does that? None. They would not be able to sell, produce or use those products anywhere else, including the entire Western world of the US/Canada and Europe. Hardly a viable strategy for a global company like Samsung who builds production for the globe, not one small country.

 

[Tarzanman]

No they can't do "whatever they want" (and I see you're finally acknowledging they can't make the displays without PANL's say so). The Japan court invalidated a total of 3 patents (out of over 1200) and none of the three have to do with the basic patents for phosphorescent OLED emission which are valid until 2018. In addition even if the Japan high IP court upholds the invalidation of those three patents, that only means that products could be produced, sold and used in Japan (nowhere else). What electronics company does that? None. They would not be able to sell, produce or use those products anywhere else, including the entire Western world of the US/Canada and Europe. Hardly a viable strategy for a global company like Samsung who builds production for the globe, not one small country.

You should really read the entire article. Here's some more perspective (since you don't feel like Googling):
http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=27412681
or
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2011/06/129_88213.html

The latest ruling from Japan is a big blow for UDC as it faced lose similar lawsuit results in Europe, patents experts told The Korea Times.

They said that patent offices in Korea and Europe are also close to nullifying UDC’s patents for PHOLED materials.
..................

So basically:
1. UDC had no patents on AMOLED. They owned patents on specific materials that make up the phosphorecent coatings that are sometimes used on the glass for OLEDs. Materials which are not crucial to AMOLED technology because other (albeit, more power-hungry) coatings are available from other companies like Duksan.

2. The patents that UDC held on these materials were invalidated in Japan as late as February, and will soon be invalidated in Europe as well (and probably elsewhere, I imagine).

And then there is this gem:

An unnamed researcher from Samsung Mobile Display’s AMOLED production line checks an ultrathin display in this file photo. Samsung and LG aim to expand their presence in the ultrathin display market by developing and selling PHOLED materials, a critical component to manufacture such displays, after winning a material patent fight with U.S.-based UDC in Japan.

....and now Samsung is going to make these materials not only for themselves, but for other display manufacturers as well.

OUCH.... kind of excoriates your entire argument, doesn't it? Seems like Samsung doesn't need UDC for jack ***t!

Here is some free advice: Now might be a good time for you to dump that Universal patent troll stock, LOL

 

[ped]

Funny how you almost know half the topic now that I've educated you on it. Unless you think Samsung spent 7 Billion over the last year to produce and sell only in Japan this court ruling on 3 out of 1200 patents doesn't mean anything. Samsung, LG, and everyone else can't make, sell or use these devices anywhere elsein the world other than (potentially) Japan. And even Japan isn't a settled matter due to the appeal already under way and the other 1200 patents UDC holds.

Glad you've finally figured out you've been wrong all along.

 

[Tarzanman]

Funny how you almost know half the topic now that I've educated you on it. Unless you think Samsung spent 7 Billion over the last year to produce and sell only in Japan this court ruling on 3 out of 1200 patents doesn't mean anything. Samsung, LG, and everyone else can't make, sell or use these devices anywhere elsein the world other than (potentially) Japan. And even Japan isn't a settled matter due to the appeal already under way and the other 1200 patents UDC holds.

Glad you've finally figured out you've been wrong all along.

Uh, have you read my last two posts? I have been right from the beginning (even if you didn't realize it). Samsung can do whatever they want with AMOLED. Check and mate.

FYI, my education on the topic came from 5 minutes of googling. Care to explain how an expert like yourself somehow missed the first 3 pages of search results for a simple keyword search? (Maybe e*trade didn't have the links for you to follow?)

I won't rub it in. I think you've embarrassed yourself plenty already. Better luck next time.

 

[ped]

I haven't missed anything; I've been discussing the patent rulings for days. Rulings you didn't know about, about patents you also didn't know about, for whom Samsung has been paying for the last 6 years (and will continue to pay) that you ALSO didn't know about. Basically the entirety of your knowledge on this subject has been a function of what I've told you and what you've gleaned from searches in the last 5 days. But that hasn't stopped your ridiculous peacock posturing and flaunting your ignorance at every opportunity. Grow up and try shutting your mouth once in a while; you might find yourself learning something.

 

[DeathChill]

Uh, have you read my last two posts? I have been right from the beginning (even if you didn't realize it). Samsung can do whatever they want with AMOLED. Check and mate.

FYI, my education on the topic came from 5 minutes of googling. Care to explain how an expert like yourself somehow missed the first 3 pages of search results for a simple keyword search? (Maybe e*trade didn't have the links for you to follow?)

I won't rub it in. I think you've embarrassed yourself plenty already. Better luck next time.

I don't even understand how your mind works. First you said that Samsung can do whatever it wants and licenses nothing from Universal Display, now you're saying that a court has declared some of the patents invalid (in Japan only) so Samsung is now free to do as it pleases (in Japan only).

You do understand you're contradicting your previous posts where you said Samsung never had to work with Universal Display.

 

[BlaqkAudio]

I didn't realize the rest of the world was located in Japan...

 

[DeathChill]

I didn't realize the rest of the world was located in Japan...

The more you know!

 

[Tarzanman]

All the information needed to prove how very wrong you are can be summed up in the links provided.

You were wrong. Misinformed, uninformed.... it doesn't really matter because the end result is the same. Next time do your research before you post.

Heh, it must *really* be burning you up inside if you still feel the need to continue an argument that you have already lost.

Or maybe you're in a bad mood over the iOS 5 announcement? It just hasn't been your week, eh? LOL

 

[BlaqkAudio]

All the information needed to prove how very wrong you are can be summed up in the links provided.

You were wrong. Misinformed, uninformed.... it doesn't really matter because the end result is the same. Next time do your research before you post.

Heh, it must *really* be burning you up inside if you still feel the need to continue an argument that you have already lost.

Or maybe you're in a bad mood over the iOS 5 announcement? It just hasn't been your week, eh? LOL

Again, unless the United States was recently relocated to Japan, your link is irrelevant.

 

[Nautilus007]

big bull

apple is a big bully

 

[ped]

I don't even understand how your mind works. First you said that Samsung can do whatever it wants and licenses nothing from Universal Display, now you're saying that a court has declared some of the patents invalid (in Japan only) so Samsung is now free to do as it pleases (in Japan only).

You do understand you're contradicting your previous posts where you said Samsung never had to work with Universal Display.

This guy is worse than clueless; his ignorance is impenetrable.

 

[ratzzo]

lol.

 

[blubyu]

Uh, have you read my last two posts? I have been right from the beginning (even if you didn't realize it). Samsung can do whatever they want with AMOLED. Check and mate.

FYI, my education on the topic came from 5 minutes of googling. Care to explain how an expert like yourself somehow missed the first 3 pages of search results for a simple keyword search? (Maybe e*trade didn't have the links for you to follow?)

I won't rub it in. I think you've embarrassed yourself plenty already. Better luck next time.

I can't believe you guys missed this

 

[ped]

I can't believe you guys missed this

Nice...

I think that may be the source of his high school diploma, too.

 

[Eli6857]

Why did Samsung Challenge these Patents if they are not immportant

Nice...

I think that may be the source of his high school diploma, too.

I own PANL and believe it has a growing future, I'm holding out, however I understand that these patents that Samsung got overturned are only beneficial for Samsung with products made & sold in Japan (hardly a victory it seems). I have a few questions. Why would Samsung challenge a patent that they cant use anywhere but in Japan? Why did UDC claim that these Patents did not effect their portfolio and was not really a setback? Does UDC still get paid for the new and future Samsung AMOLED Cell Phones they sell in North America, Europe and China? If so, then why the panic selling? Thanks, trying to figure this out.

 

[Metal Dice]

Apple is just a little child compared to the huge Samsung's corporation.
Apple depends on Samsung, not the other way around.

Apple could buy Samsung...
Do some research. -.-