dude, Samsung really copied some things over, man. Just take a look at the bloody springboard on some of their phones.
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
Then you should have already sold. UDC has already had 3 patents invalidated and Duksan is suing them in Korea for the same ones that Japan invalidated.
Check google, analysts have removed their buy rating. Basically, investors are realizing the very same thing that I have stated on this thread... Samsung doesn't need UDC to produce the panels. The ruling in Japan is the first of many that will come. Duksan is going to argue prior art, which is as damning as it gets with declaring a patent invalid.
If I were you, i would buy Samsung stock instead.
Lol. You should take your own advice, buddy. Here are the numbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung
Samsung total assets: $294.5 Billion (2009)
Samsung net income: $13.8 billion (2009)
Samsung total equity: $112.5 billion (2009)
Samsung revenue: $172.5 billion (2009)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.
Apple total assets: $75.18 Billion (2010)
Apple net income: $14 billion (2010)
Apple total equity: $47.8 billion (2010)
Apple revenue: $65.23 billion (2010)
So basically, Samsung is 4 times larger (total assets), has 3 times Apple's revenue, and 2.5 times the equity of Apple. Mmmm, no. Apple cannot afford to buy Samsung.
Apple does make $200 million more profit a year than Samsung... buy maybe not this year since they have to pay Nokia ~$658 million dollars
Samsung makes TVs, washing machines, Bluray/DVD players, home theatre systems, netbooks, is investing in energy grid systems in places like Ontario, Canada...etc etc etc...
It is a conglomerate. Compared to it Apple is a computing company. "Apple computers inc". See the big difference?
it's like comparing walmart to guess....
It is a conglomerate. Compared to it Apple is a computing company. "Apple computers inc". See the big difference?
it's like comparing walmart to guess....
Uh, maybe you should re-read the thread.
1. Samsung doesn't need UDC patents to make SuperAMOLEDs (UDC's patents only cover specific phosphorecent materials, Samsung is free to use others)
2. UDC's patents were declared invalid months ago in Japan, are under seige in Korea and expected to be challenged and invalidated in other countries.
Besides that, Samsung is still free to license SuperAMOLED to whomever they want (which is what the argument is about).
RIF, dude.
1. Samsung doesn't need UDC patents to make SuperAMOLEDs (UDC's patents only cover specific phosphorecent materials, Samsung is free to use others)
2. UDC's patents were declared invalid months ago in Japan, are under seige in Korea and expected to be challenged and invalidated in other countries.
Besides that, Samsung is still free to license SuperAMOLED to whomever they want (which is what the argument is about).
RIF, dude.
I don't think you even believe what you say.
So, unless Samsung decides to quit manufacturing and selling anywhere but Japan then it changes very little. In fact the article say the basic PHOLED patent is still valid so there must be some royalties still.
However, you did a great job of proving yourself wrong. You first said that Samsung licenses nothing, then you said Japan invalided the patents so Samsung doesn't have to pay full royalties there, then you say the patents are under attack in other countries which means you understand that Samsung has to pay licensing fees elsewhere. I don't get you.
A Korean newspaper carrying an unsubstantiated and uncorroborated cheerleading story for the largest Korean manufacturer, who happens to be in negotiations for a long-term contract with Universal Display... not suspicious at all.
Nothing fundamental has changed with PANL. We always knew patent challenges would come; it's part of what being an IP company is about.
But if anyone thinks Samsung can do anything useful with a handful of patent challenges that do nothing in the USA or Europe they've got another think coming. I saw an article the other day that the Koreans were complaining about PANL's patents being "too important for a small American company to hold". If that's the extent of their legal argument we're good to go.
Last edited:
All wrong. Gabelli, Goldman Sachs, and several other large investment groups all maintain a BUY rating and in fact Gabelli has reiterated their BUY rating. For instance:
http://www.americanbankingnews.com/...te-a-buy-rating-on-universal-display-co-panl/
And their price targets per share for PANL are as follows:
2011 $75
2012 $95
2013 $120
Last edited:
Actually improvements are valid patent uses, so prior art doesn't mean much. From a stock forum I participate in:
And even knowing that where is this supposed prior art? None has been shown and it should be easy to find. But guess what? There isn't any. The original phosphorescent OLED research was published in the highly regarded science journal Nature. Another quote from that forum:
Last edited:
BTW, Duksan's main product they produce? SOLDER BALLS. Not exactly a company on the cutting edge of display and lighting technology.
Wrong again. If Samsung used only fluorescent OLED materials (the only ones they can get without paying PANL) they would lose all the efficiency benefits they're getting from Universal's PHOLED materials (brighter and use less power). An OLED display without PHOLED is less efficient than an LCD screen. Samsung is equaling LCD efficiency now using Universal's PHOLED red material, and we believe they're using green now as well on the new gen 5.5 fab that came online early last month (due to the fact they removed the Pentile architecture and went with full RGB which increased subpixel count on the new Galaxy S2 screens yet they still saved 18% in battery consumption compared to the Galaxy S's screen). Which will increase their screen's efficiency even more, beating LCD. Once PANL's blue is ready for production and Samsung (and LG, AUO, etc) start using all the PHOLED colors in their displays the efficiency will be far better than LCD.
More on the efficiency provided by using each color in order (RGB).
http://www.universaldisplay.com/default.asp?contentID=605
Last edited:
I don't think so - from the comments of other posters that appears to be part of his "appeal", for lack of a better term.
And that matters how? What do they do besides in the computer industry? Nothing unless you count music they sell on iTunes.
Fact of the matter: Samsung does not need UDC to make AMOLED displays. (You admitted this yourself 4 posts back)
Even assuming the patents weren't invalidated, saying they do is like saying that Ferrari needs Pirelli to make 508's because of Pirelli patents on rubber technology.
It is a component which is easily replaced. Meaning that my initial post has its facts straight.
Deal with it.
Even assuming the patents weren't invalidated, saying they do is like saying that Ferrari needs Pirelli to make 508's because of Pirelli patents on rubber technology.
It is a component which is easily replaced. Meaning that my initial post has its facts straight.
Deal with it.
Samsung will not make OLED displays without using phosphorescent materials so your point is moot. They just invested over US $7 Billion on factories to make displays using PANL's technology - they've made clear what they want to do. They'd like to do it CHEAPER by robbing PANL of their due, but that isn't going to happen.
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I'm new to this forum (found it in a random google search trying to figure out when green PHOLED will be used commercially) and boy did I enjoy reading back through the entire thread.
Obviously hindsight analysis is always unfair, and at the time there was at least a semi-colorable argument that Samsung didn't need UDC (ex., world-wide invalidation of UDC's patents), but the recent Samsung/UDC contract really undermines and underlines, respectively, what was being said in here.
PS - Ironically, I do think the OP was an interesting and respectable theory. Apple has previously invested heavy capital in emerging technologies to get the first crack at them. A little stick (lawsuit) and carrot ($10B+ OLED fab investment "loaned" to Samsung) wouldn't be a bad way for Apple to jump right into the world of OLEDs, a cutting edge tech that fits right in with Apple's enviable reputation.
Oh what a difference a few months make. Saw this and though of you, ped.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/313753-universal-display-a-real-work-of-prior-art
yeah, that agreement that Samsung signed whose details were hush-hush? That wasn't for royalties on patented materials, it was for now-commoditized materials that many other manufacturers supply.
I.e. Samsung doesn't need UDC
18 of their 30 patents were invalidated in Europe and a lot of people suspect that their domestic US patents wouldn't survive a comprehensive patent re-examination.
You'd better dump that stock if you haven't already, buddy.
I think the point, unless I missed it, is that in terms of legalities and being able/allowed to use patents, copyrights, etc. a pattern of behavior is irrelevant. I could get along with you amicably for decades, but if you screw me, I am still going to go for the throat.
Now I am personally not a believer in that the galaxy tab is a ripoff of the iPad, but that doesn't seem to be what this discussion is about.
http://www.bgr.com/2012/04/05/stolen-samsung-amoled-technology-sold-to-rival-11-suspects-arrested/
Stolen Samsung AMOLED technology sold to rival, 11 suspects arrested.
Doesn't seem like anyone is trying to steal any tech from UD. Strange, since their IP is so integral to the manufacture of any/all OLED displays
Stolen Samsung AMOLED technology sold to rival, 11 suspects arrested.
Doesn't seem like anyone is trying to steal any tech from UD. Strange, since their IP is so integral to the manufacture of any/all OLED displays