Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

ITC Rules Apple Infringed on Samsung Patents, Issues Cease and Desist Order for Older Apple Devices

Clown Boy said:
Just got a Galaxy S4 and in all honesty it makes the iPhone look like a kids toy.

If you haven't tried one then you really should. It genuinely is a far superior product and doesn't need to rely on smart marketing for features similar to Siri which frankly don't even work.

Korea > USA
Click to expand...

I don't know what's worse, you trolling apple articles, the fact that you equated a phone to a whole country or that you haven't been banned yet.
 
Bear said:
andApple bought a Qualcomm chip, presumably Qualcomm already paid a license fee to Samsung to be able to manufacture the chip. Wouldn't this be double dipping?
Click to expand...

All the devices listed used an Infineon baseband chip, not a Qualcomm.

1st use of a qualcomm baseband came with the verizon iphone 4.
 
Doing battle in court is one thing but the sheer meanness of Samsung is something different and they are now on my permanent boycott list. I was looking at a washer/dryer they made but it's going to be Whirlpool now.
 
iGrip said:
Wait...I thought it was Samsung who always copied everything that Apple ever invented!


Didn't the ITC get the memo?


/s

----------



The judgement can be used as a basis for a later damages suit.

These willful patent infringers need to be taught a lesson.
Click to expand...

So basically if these lawsuits continue, this has potential to maybe hurt Apple. But in the short term, it won't do anything. Sound about right?
 
bbeagle said:
Samsung fans, tell me how "Apparatus and method for encoding/decoding transport format combination indicator in CDMA mobile communication system." is something you support going after anyone for.

If you say, 'But Apple started it', just makes Samsung as bad as you claim Apple to be, and no more taking the high-road with Samsung.
Click to expand...

I'm curious if you were this vocal when Apple was suing Samsung for making tablets with rounded edges and black borders? Apple got a taste of their own medicine and rightfully so.
 
thejadedmonkey said:
I'm no Samsung fan, but I can tell you that developing microcontrollers and software for them isn't super easy. If Samsung did it, patented it, and then Apple used it, Apple is in the wrong.
Click to expand...

Pay attention, it is a FRAND patent, so the "Fair" and "Reasonable" part have to apply to the license rate. 2.4% of the whole device for this one patent? Really? Are you suggesting Apple to pay 240000% of their revenue for the 10k patent involved? These are all-in-one devices.
 
Macboy Pro said:
Well, I am not a samsung fan, but Apple did go after a rectangle with rounded corners. :eek:
Click to expand...

You totally bought Samsung official's highly-tweaked version of what the patent is about, and you are still saying that you are not a Samsung fan??? Seriously??? Where is your logic or brain!!!!
 
2IS said:
I'm curious if you were this vocal when Apple was suing Samsung for making tablets with rounded edges and black borders? Apple got a taste of their own medicine and rightfully so.
Click to expand...

Every patent dispute is different. It's not like apple winning one entitles Samsung to win one. There's nothing inconsistent about thinking apple was in the right both times. Now if one thinks that only because they like apple, then that's a different story.
 
How can the old ones infringe but new ones not? Is this hardware or software?

To me software is code, if you copy code then you should get done for it. If you code it your own way then you are free to do whatever you like. Patents should be for hardware and only those that are innovative. Seeing as this appears to be essential to running on networks world wide it should be a flat license fee for all.

I'm assuming... probably wrongly, that samsung was asking for an extortionate amount to license when others had been given for less. Under FRAND apple have a case. I also think you should not be able to patent anything that is deemed essential to a device or product to work any way.

It should all be about letting more people get into a market. all the big companies are guilty including apple but...

If even apple is in threat of having products removed from shelves then who knows what happens to small competition behind closed doors.
 
2IS said:
I'm curious if you were this vocal when Apple was suing Samsung for making tablets with rounded edges and black borders? Apple got a taste of their own medicine and rightfully so.
Click to expand...

I'm curious if you were this vocal when Apple was suing Samsung for making tablets with rounded edges and black borders? Were you for Apple doing this or against Apple doing this?

Why are you now FOR Samsung doing something that you scolded Apple for? Looks very hypocritical.
 
2IS said:
I'm curious if you were this vocal when Apple was suing Samsung for making tablets with rounded edges and black borders? Apple got a taste of their own medicine and rightfully so.
Click to expand...

So if Samsung loses, will they have a taste of their own medicine also?
 
Bear said:
In that case wouldn't Infineon have paid a licensing fee?
Click to expand...

Based on what Samsung claimed, Infineon did not have a license.

Apple's counter to this is that they bought the chips from Intel which did have a license. (Intel subsequently bought infineon's wireless division in 2011)

Judging from the Apple arguments in this case, the issue of exhaustion seems have been settled. At least if it was me I'd still be harping on patent exhaustion if it hasn't been settled.
 
When Apple sued Samsung, I had to hear whining that Apple was a meanie bullying Samsung. Somehow, the same people whining about that seem to think this is just fine. A patent that basically covers any cell phone being used on AT&T is amazingly only being infringed by Apple, not every other cell phone maker that uses the exact same tech.

----------
ValSalva said:
The work is B.S. The system was created by and is perpetuated by lawyers to keep them getting dubious work.
Click to expand...

Hear, hear.
 
Oh yeeeahhh, my phone might be illegal in the future :D

----------
SuperMatt said:
When Apple sued Samsung, I had to hear whining that Apple was a meanie bullying Samsung. Somehow, the same people whining about that seem to think this is just fine. A patent that basically covers any cell phone being used on AT&T is amazingly only being infringed by Apple, not every other cell phone maker that uses the exact same tech.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm also wondering how Apple is the only company at fault here according to Samsung.

----------
oliversl said:
People, just stop buying Samsung product.

Look at the future you are building by buying Samsung products: copy design like a cheap ripoff rogue company, use FRAND patents that will make you pay a license for every chipset you buy.

Nonsense
Click to expand...

I'm just going to stop buying their stuff because the one Samsung product I bought, a TV, is really annoying. Whose idea was it to put black touch-sensitive buttons on a black bezel and have only 2 AV inputs? I like Sony a lot more.
 
Isn't it ironic that all these device just happen to be all on the AT&T network :)

Someone doesn't like this carrier.

You'd think they'd be a Verizon in there somewhere.
 
thejadedmonkey said:
I'm no Samsung fan, but I can tell you that developing microcontrollers and software for them isn't super easy. If Samsung did it, patented it, and then Apple used it, Apple is in the wrong.
Click to expand...

I think he's referring to the vagueness of the patent. It's like the time I was trolled for an iPhone app with some patent for the simulation of real world objects in a handheld computing device. It would seem that it would be impossible to make a CDMA device without running afoul of that patent, given the breadth of its scope.
 
SuperMatt said:
A patent that basically covers any cell phone being used on AT&T is amazingly only being infringed by Apple, not every other cell phone maker that uses the exact same tech.
Click to expand...

If the others are licensing the patents, they are not infringing.

Apple seems to have a fundamental problem with licensing (in other words, "paying for") third party IP that Apple uses in Apple's products.

The "Apple Arrogance" will bite them in the butt....
 
toaster64 said:
Oh yeeeahhh, my phone might be illegal in the future :DI'm just going to stop buying their stuff because the one Samsung product I bought, a TV, is really annoying. Whose idea was it to put black touch-sensitive buttons on a black bezel and have only 2 AV inputs? I like Sony a lot more.
Click to expand...


My wife had a Samsung TV like that when we met. I always like walking by my TV and turning it on with the button. No such luck with that samsung. Damned near impossible to operate without the remote.
 
KPOM said:
Foss Patents said it is a major surprise, as the ITC rejected the FRAND defense that other federal courts have accepted. It's entirely possible that the White House will veto this.


Regarding CDMA, note that 3G uses WCDMA, which depends on some of the same patents as CDMA2000.
Click to expand...

As far as I am concerned, at&t's 3G network is UMTS/HSPA where both of them use W-CDMA.
May need to point that out before more confusion.
 
iGrip said:
Wait...I thought it was Samsung who always copied everything that Apple ever invented!


Didn't the ITC get the memo?


/s

----------



The judgement can be used as a basis for a later damages suit.

These willful patent infringers need to be taught a lesson.
Click to expand...

Like Samsung who willfully and with intent copied Apple's trade dress in order to confuse customers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back