Samsung Already Planning to Target iPhone 5 with Patent Lawsuits

[TMay]

Charts for other years aren't much different.

Lots of manufacturing process patents among the numbers.

So here's the difference between Apple and Samsung:

Apple makes a narrow range of products and patents technology for UI, software, hardware and manufacturing specific to those products. A collective sample of all of Apple's physical products will fit on a modest sized table.

Samsung builds from the component level to ships, and the patents reflect that. It doesn't necessarily mean that Samsung patent quantities have any effect on Apple at all other than via components that Apple specifically purchases from Samsung.

On the other hand, it is probably true that Samsung is not well supported with patents for UI of the quaility of Apple's or Microsoft's. The question unanswered is what patents Samsung will use against Apple and how much weight they will carry.

Happy to see that Samsung is doing so well with all of their businesses, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple gets a better return on investment nor that Apple is building a pile of cash.

 

[BaldiMac]

you might want to check your facts on that one. Apple has a long history of stealing ideas and ripping others off.

Some examples
Watson or Sherlock was stolen (that one is pretty old so I can not remember the name)
Dashboard was a direct rip off of Konfabolator.
iTunes was even rip off of someone else on software made for OSX.

End of story Apple is not exactly the most honorable company when it comes to not stealing. They steal just as bad as the rest of them. Only difference is they have the RDF to cover it up.

The inability to differentiate between legally copying or purchasing an idea and stealing IP is the source of endless arguments in these forums.

Speaking of which (and off topic a bit) - I thought FaceTime was an "open standard" - if that's the case - how come no one else is using it?

Apple promised to submit Facetime to a standards body for approval as an open standard. It was not an open standard at launch. There hasn't been any public explanation that I am aware of as to where in this process they are or why it is not going forward.

 

[chagla]

The inability to differentiate between legally copying or purchasing an idea and stealing IP is the source of endless arguments in these forums.

..

http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/27/think-ibooks-looks-familiar-youre-not-the-only-one/

what's your take on this?

 

[*LTD*]

Perhaps you're looking at the wrong side of the packaging. I'm pretty sure if you open up your iPad and iPhone, you'll see Samsung and many other INNOVATIVE company logos.

Cool.

But I can't navigate or play games on a sound chip.

Parts are great. Quality parts are wonderful. But they mean sweet f all until they're part of a package.

Render unto Samsung what Samsung is due: component innovation. I have no problem with that. But give the components to Apple - and TSMC can give them to Apple, and ARM can give them to Apple, etc., to make them actually mean something to people.

And Apple pulls from more than one supplier, sometimes switches suppliers, etc. More than one place to get LCD displays, camera lenses, etc. But only ONE Apple-designed device that works with Apple's software.

 

[BaldiMac]

http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/27/think-ibooks-looks-familiar-youre-not-the-only-one/

what's your take on this?

I don't know the details. Shipley says that they don't have a patent or other IP protection for organizing pictures of books on wood shelves. It doesn't seem that much else is similar between the two programs. Why would Apple need permission?

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I don't know the details. Shipley says that they don't have a patent or other IP protection for organizing pictures of books on wood shelves. It doesn't seem that much else is similar between the two programs. Why would Apple need permission?

Just add it to the list of things Apple stole and copies from others. Apple is just as bad and in some ways worse than everyone else.

Legal and ethical are two very different things. Apple is far from a ethical company. They are pretty unethical.

 

[samcraig]

Cool.

But I can't navigate or play games on a sound chip.

Parts are great. Quality parts are wonderful. But they mean sweet f all until they're part of a package.

Render unto Samsung what Samsung is due: component innovation. I have no problem with that. But give the components to Apple - and TSMC can give them to Apple, and ARM can give them to Apple, etc., to make them actually mean something to people.

And Apple pulls from more than one supplier, sometimes switches suppliers, etc. More than one place to get LCD displays. But only ONE Apple-designed device that works with Apple's software.

You're missing the point or perhaps just failing to acknowledge it. You can't have one without the other. And you can't dismiss Samsung as just a component manufacturer and that they should just give Apple their goods and get out of the way. They are every bit entitled to be in the marketplace with their own products that use their own components.

It might not mean anything to YOU, LTD - but newsflash - you aren't the only person in the world.

But it's the similar argument one could have for many areas of business. If it weren't for the sales team, an IT firm wouldn't have revenue. But if it weren't for the consultants that do the work, there wouldn't be anything to sell.

Apple wouldn't be able to produce their products without the innovations of other companies. You want to praise Apple and give them more of the "ovation" on that and say to ignore the man behind the curtain.

That's why I say it's a symbiotic relationship. Both companies innovate and both are important to each other. The who is more important or who innovates more is irrelevant.

 

[johnnyturbouk]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

*wake me up when the iPhone 5 is finally released!

 

[dba7dba]

Whatever "components innovations" they enjoy, are theirs and probably deserved, or at least fairly achieved. It's when they venture into competing in consumer tech (namely in mobile at this point) where the fish really begins to stink.

Samsung is innovative in tv, which is not just a component. It used to be not that way. But samsung wanted to improve their own lot and story has changed.

who's to say samsung has to stay in their traditional role as component provider?

 

[BaldiMac]

Just add it to the list of things Apple stole and copies from others. Apple is just as bad and in some ways worse than everyone else.

Legal and ethical are two very different things. Apple is far from a ethical company. They are pretty unethical.

Unless you have any evidence that Apple stole anything in this case, you are just spreading FUD. Copying ideas that aren't legally protected is completely normal. You could argue that it's a basis for innovation.

You don't have any ethical duty to compensate someone for something that they don't have any legal rights to.

 

[samcraig]

Samsung is innovative in tv, which is not just a component. It used to be not that way. But samsung wanted to improve their own lot and story has changed.

who's to say samsung has to stay in their traditional role as component provider?

Apple has been great with computers, phones, tablets and music players. I'm sure LTD has no problem with Apple creating a TV. Yet companies like Samsung shouldn't enter into other endeavors.

Watch - Apple will make TV one day and LTD will insist Samsung leave the market LOL

 

[dethmaShine]

The inability to differentiate between legally copying or purchasing an idea and stealing IP is the source of endless arguments in these forums.

Thanks for coming up with that. It feel quite disconsolate to see people cannot differentiate b/w copying, building up on previous designs and rightfully infringing on someone's Intellectual Property and Copyrights.

The examples that he suggested are preposterous. The basic lack of understanding the difference b/w making an idea better and slavishly copying is comical cum sad.
Everything is a copy of one or another; the age of real inventions and discoveries has passed by. What we see today is progression and nothing else. With this, I do not reject the innovation and research going on in the universities or these for-profit companies; I totally acknowledge that but I still would claim that this innovation is mostly based on major innovations that have happened back in the day.

Sighting examples like that is absurd and disturbing.

 

[vrDrew]

True, Apple contends they involve RAND

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the legal and ethical principals behind (F)RAND.

For the uninitiated, FRAND ("Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory") is a principle that Intellectual Property (patents, trademarks, etc.) that are accepted by Standard Setting Organizations HAVE TO be licensed.

When a company such as Samsung has its IP accepted by mobile telephony as an "Essential Standard" it is entitled to be compensated by firms that use it. It IS NOT entitled to use that IP as a club or weapon to force other companies to do whatever they want. A commonly used metaphor is that FRAND IP allows the rights holder to set up a parking meter - but not a road block.

Apple's IP, and the patents and designs they allege Samsung have infringed, are most specifically not FRAND, "Standards Essential", or similar.

You literally could not make a cellphone without using at least some of the Samsung FRAND IP. You most certainly CAN make a cellphone that doesn't have "pinch to zoom" or "scroll and bounce back" (ie. some of the IP Apple owns, and is alleging Samsung infringes) functionality built into it.

 

[samcraig]

Unless you have any evidence that Apple stole anything in this case, you are just spreading FUD. Copying ideas that aren't legally protected is completely normal. You could argue that it's a basis for innovation.

You don't have any ethical duty to compensate someone for something that they don't have any legal rights to.

No - but just because it's legal doesn't make it ethical or make for good PR. The fact that they poached his crew while giving his software design awards make it more visible that they were leaching.

Not illegal - but definitely a bit scummy in many peoples opinions. Especially given Apple's bank account and cachet.

It also doesn't spread good will to the many developers who have made the Apple ecosystem what it is when Apple turns around (like with iOS 5) and poaches software others have developed and claim them as their own. It's a bit of a slap in the face.

 

[mac jones]

I'm filing a patent infringement suit on everything that exists


God

 

[TMay]

They are every bit entitled to be in the marketplace with their own products that use their own components.

Actually, no.

If Samsung doesn't own or can't obtain the IP, which is a legitimate barrier to entry, then Samsung shouldn't be allowed to survive in that market.

Similarly, If Apple doesn't own or can't obtain the IP, the same is true.

Both Apple and Samsung have the right, varying by country and circumstance, to battle over IP infringement and that is what is happening. Neither is good nor bad, both are just doing what each companies management considers is in the best interest of the company.

Picking winners and losers based on ideology is for fools, albeit I am much more supportive of patent holders that apply the technology within their own companies, as compared to patent trolls.

 

[BaldiMac]

No - but just because it's legal doesn't make it ethical or make for good PR. The fact that they poached his crew while giving his software design awards make it more visible that they were leaching.

Not illegal - but definitely a bit scummy in many peoples opinions. Especially given Apple's bank account and cachet.

It also doesn't spread good will to the many developers who have made the Apple ecosystem what it is when Apple turns around (like with iOS 5) and poaches software others have developed and claim them as their own. It's a bit of a slap in the face.

So, you are saying that Apple should have given Delicious Monster money in exchange for nothing in order to avoid be perceived as scummy by the small group of people who actually are aware of the situation? All so they could draw a wooden bookshelf in the background of a book organizing app? Or that they shouldn't offer jobs to Mac app developers?

 

[divinox]

Unless you have any evidence that Apple stole anything in this case, you are just spreading FUD. Copying ideas that aren't legally protected is completely normal. You could argue that it's a basis for innovation.

You don't have any ethical duty to compensate someone for something that they don't have any legal rights to.

Which in essence boils down to: Those who do not have the resources to protect their property deserve to be stolen from. Second, normal does not equate right.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Unless you have any evidence that Apple stole anything in this case, you are just spreading FUD. Copying ideas that aren't legally protected is completely normal. You could argue that it's a basis for innovation.

You don't have any ethical duty to compensate someone for something that they don't have any legal rights to.

Big difference is none of those people Apple tends to steal and copy from tend to lack the deep pockets to take Apple to court and sue them. Or have the legal department for the protections.

I am not spreading FUD but more pointing out Apple has a history of doing stunts and in some ways driving companies out of business/ making them buy out bait.

You again fail to understand the difference between ethical and legal. Being legal does not mean it is ethical. Apple is far from being a ethical company. In terms of ethics they are by far worse than MS. MS is a much more ethical company than Apple at this point in time.

Apple is pretty bad and in some ways among the worse then they cry foul when anyone slightly copies on of there designs. There is no getting around those facts.

 

[samcraig]

Actually, no.

If Samsung doesn't own or can't obtain the IP, which is a legitimate barrier to entry, then Samsung shouldn't be allowed to survive in that market.

Similarly, If Apple doesn't own or can't obtain the IP, the same is true.

Both Apple and Samsung have the right, varying by country and circumstance, to battle over IP infringement and that is what is happening. Neither is good nor bad, both are just doing what each companies management considers is in the best interest of the company.

Picking winners and losers based on ideology is for fools, albeit I am much more supportive of patent holders that apply the technology within their own companies, as compared to patent trolls.

You picking apart something I was saying in general terms. I don't discount your logic above.

----------

So, you are saying that Apple should have given Delicious Monster money in exchange for nothing in order to avoid be perceived as scummy by the small group of people who actually are aware of the situation? All so they could draw a wooden bookshelf in the background of a book organizing app? Or that they shouldn't offer jobs to Mac app developers?

No - I think Apple should just bully either directly or indirectly to get whatever they want without concern for anyone but themselves.

Now you'll excuse me while I go and change my screen name to #LTD#

 

[divinox]

So, you are saying that Apple should have given Delicious Monster money in exchange for nothing in order to avoid be perceived as scummy by the small group of people who actually are aware of the situation? All so they could draw a wooden bookshelf in the background of a book organizing app? Or that they shouldn't offer jobs to Mac app developers?

For those arguing that Samsung should do the same for stacking tiles in their app drawer, yes. For the more sensible of us, no. I shouldnt speak on behalf of others, but i I think he is targeting the double-standards more than the act itself. In short, theres too much hypocrisy going on around these boards.

 

[dba7dba]

Apple has been great with computers, phones, tablets and music players. I'm sure LTD has no problem with Apple creating a TV. Yet companies like Samsung shouldn't enter into other endeavors.

Watch - Apple will make TV one day and LTD will insist Samsung leave the market LOL

Not sure if you (samcraig) are saying or LTD is saying, but samsung can enter into any endeavors they want.

Don't remind me about Apple TV. Apple TV will come out and then Apple will start suing all other TV makers about something...

 

[BaldiMac]

Big difference is none of those people Apple tends to steal and copy from tend to lack the deep pockets to take Apple to court and sue them. Or have the legal department for the protections.

I am not spreading FUD but more pointing out Apple has a history of doing stunts and in some ways driving companies out of business/ making them buy out bait.

What IP was stolen? Source?

Unless you can document specific IP (patents or copyright) that Apple stole in each of those cases, than you are spreading FUD.

You again fail to understand the difference between ethical and legal. Being legal does not mean it is ethical. Apple is far from being a ethical company. In terms of ethics they are by far worse than MS. MS is a much more ethical company than Apple at this point in time.

I completely understand the difference. The evidence you provided does not support your claim.

Apple is pretty bad and in some ways among the worse then they cry foul when anyone slightly copies on of there designs. There is no getting around those facts.

Again, you are speaking in generalities and confusing the issue that I called you on. There is a difference between legally copying an idea and stealing IP. The fact that Apple legally copies ideas and "cry foul" when they feel someone has stolen their IP is not hypocritical.

 

[samcraig]

Not sure if you (samcraig) are saying or LTD is saying, but samsung can enter into any endeavors they want.

Don't remind me about Apple TV. Apple TV will come out and then Apple will start suing all other TV makers about something...

I'm not saying that - I'm saying that LTD would say something similar if not verbatim

 

[BaldiMac]

For those arguing that Samsung should do the same for stacking tiles in their app drawer, yes. For the more sensible of us, no. I shouldnt speak on behalf of others, but i I think he is targeting the double-standards more than the act itself. In short, theres too much hypocrisy going on around these boards.

Except I've never made that argument about Samsung. Way to break out the strawman.