Not only that but Samsung seems to think it is the sole owner or wireless technology.
The IEEE thinks differently.
I sincerely hope Apple has started lining up new memory chip makers.
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.
Samsung Already Planning to Target iPhone 5 with Patent Lawsuits
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not only that but Samsung seems to think it is the sole owner or wireless technology.
The IEEE thinks differently.
I sincerely hope Apple has started lining up new memory chip makers.
As you say, Samsung can't refuse to offer Apple fair licensing terms for essential communications technology, other legal actions between the companies notwithstanding. Otherwise, no company other than Samsung could make mobile phones, and given the patent portfolios owned by other companies, even they couldn't make then due to the IP that Samsung has to license under fair licensing terms.
I quite dislike this whole line of thinking, though, to announce that you are going to sue someone for patent infringement on a product before you even know what they are making. Now we know why Samsung demanded to see prototypes of the iPhone 5 "and any future products".
There needs to be a better way of doing these things. Many of these patents are probably for tings that are so common sense that they should not be patentable. In these patent cases probably all parties are at fault. I seems as when Apple got bigger that it has become more MicroSoft like & works as if they do everything correctly & everyone else is doing everything incorrectly.
Because Apple is acting just as bad or worse than everyone else in these patent wars I hope that Samsung is the winner in making Apple's new products to being kept from being sold. If all parties are kept from selling their new products & then even their older products there will be some pressure to do something with the current patent laws.
I should have made a patent on how to turn on any item. I could patent each corner of a switch. Then on those that wanted to use the upper right corner would have to purchase a license from me or cut out having an upper right corner on any on-off switches they choose to use. This is just like you saying that my tablet or phone or any sized display looks like your tablet or phone or any sized display. But since screens must have a screen & a bezel they are going to look a lot alike. But screens & bezels have been around much too long to still have enforceable patents on them. But still Apple seems to being a user of their looks like patent. The same would seem to apply to my use of a corner of a switch. But it seems as if patents are still being given for these things.
At the rate we are going companies legal department will all have to have larger budgets than the R & D departments. They will also become the major income producing areas of more & more companies. Many of these legal departments will take over income production from the sales department.
Because Apple is acting just as bad or worse than everyone else in these patent wars I hope that Samsung is the winner in making Apple's new products to being kept from being sold. If all parties are kept from selling their new products & then even their older products there will be some pressure to do something with the current patent laws.
I should have made a patent on how to turn on any item. I could patent each corner of a switch. Then on those that wanted to use the upper right corner would have to purchase a license from me or cut out having an upper right corner on any on-off switches they choose to use. This is just like you saying that my tablet or phone or any sized display looks like your tablet or phone or any sized display. But since screens must have a screen & a bezel they are going to look a lot alike. But screens & bezels have been around much too long to still have enforceable patents on them. But still Apple seems to being a user of their looks like patent. The same would seem to apply to my use of a corner of a switch. But it seems as if patents are still being given for these things.
At the rate we are going companies legal department will all have to have larger budgets than the R & D departments. They will also become the major income producing areas of more & more companies. Many of these legal departments will take over income production from the sales department.
while may not be the nicest thing look at Apple crap cases and the low ball stunts Apple is pulling. Apple started this BS.
There are some things that are very safe to assume like iPhone5 is not going to change a large amount in what iPhone 4. Anything that they can nail on the iPhone4 chances are very high they can bring the case against the iPhone5. It is also known Apple is going to bring out a new phone.
To do max damage and force Apple to be more reasonable than this BS cases they are doing all over the world is hit a new product right at announcement. I would not be surprised in the least to see iPhone 4 listed along with the 5 at filling. They are just waiting for the iPhone5 to launch before they go after them.
Either way before you start insulting Samsung for this you might as well look at Apple and look at how dirty they are playing.
Read this, then went back and looked at a picture of the international Galaxy S and lol'd. Should Samsung be hit for the Galaxy S? Yes. Nexus S? No. Droid Charge? No. TouchWiz on their phones? Somewhat. The Galaxy Tab? No. The tab 10.1? Yes. The 7.7? No.
HTC? No. Motorola? No.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)
Reasons why apple won't keep the same iPhone 4 design of 2010!!!
Galaxy S II
125.3 x 66.1 x 8.49mm, 117g
iPhone 4
115.2 x 58.7 x 9.3mm, 137g
Galaxy S II
4.27-inch, 800x480px, Super AMOLED Plus
iPhone 4
3.5-inch, 960x640px, LCD with IPS
Galaxy S II
1GHz Tegra 2 dual core, 1GB RAM / 1.2GHz Dual Core Exynos chip, 1GB RAM
iPhone 4
Apple A4, 512MB
Galaxy S II
8MP rear, 2MP front, 1080p video capture
iPhone 4
5MP rear, VGA front, 720p video capture
Galaxy S II
Wi-Fi, NFC, 4G, BT 3.0, DLNA, Wi-Fi tethering
iPhone 4
Wi-Fi, BT 2.1, 3G
Conclusion of my theory apple is smarter than to have waited a whole 3 more months to realize a storage bump upgraded camera and better speeds nope nope nope seems unreal in the works of apple! It wouldn't give samsung competition what I think is that it's all going to change once again like they did last year at wwdc 2010
y'all just watch btw I know this has nothing to do with the article lol
Reasons why apple won't keep the same iPhone 4 design of 2010!!!
Galaxy S II
125.3 x 66.1 x 8.49mm, 117g
iPhone 4
115.2 x 58.7 x 9.3mm, 137g
Galaxy S II
4.27-inch, 800x480px, Super AMOLED Plus
iPhone 4
3.5-inch, 960x640px, LCD with IPS
Galaxy S II
1GHz Tegra 2 dual core, 1GB RAM / 1.2GHz Dual Core Exynos chip, 1GB RAM
iPhone 4
Apple A4, 512MB
Galaxy S II
8MP rear, 2MP front, 1080p video capture
iPhone 4
5MP rear, VGA front, 720p video capture
Galaxy S II
Wi-Fi, NFC, 4G, BT 3.0, DLNA, Wi-Fi tethering
iPhone 4
Wi-Fi, BT 2.1, 3G
Conclusion of my theory apple is smarter than to have waited a whole 3 more months to realize a storage bump upgraded camera and better speeds nope nope nope seems unreal in the works of apple! It wouldn't give samsung competition what I think is that it's all going to change once again like they did last year at wwdc 2010
y'all just watch btw I know this has nothing to do with the article lolMeh, Apple had it coming.
This whole thing about patents has gone completely wrong. It's there to protect innovation, not stall it.
This whole thing about patents has gone completely wrong. It's there to protect innovation, not stall it.
Seriously!!
However I laugh at telecommunications threat by this Samsung senior rep. Samsung doesn't have a wealthy set of knowledge or workings of telecommunications patents in use with their own chips. If it was Nokia-Siemens, or Ericsson, or even Lucent/Motorola THEN I could see some weight behind this threat - because they ALL sell chips to other players in the mobile phone/tablet space.
Apple will be just fine - but these patent wars are beginning to stop pissing me off and now bore me.
Samsung was gong to sue Apple using Infineon baseband chip. Apple now uses Qualcomm chip instead. How does Samsung sue Apple now?
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)
Impossible. If this is really the case, every other phone manufacturer should get sued or at least be paying royalties to Samsung since they claimed "it would be impossible for it to sell its i-branded products without using our patents."
Apple will surely point out why HTC, LG, Nokia, Motorola, Sony Ericsson are not doing the same?
Impossible. If this is really the case, every other phone manufacturer should get sued or at least be paying royalties to Samsung since they claimed "it would be impossible for it to sell its i-branded products without using our patents."
Apple will surely point out why HTC, LG, Nokia, Motorola, Sony Ericsson are not doing the same?
Origins
Early examples for this technology:
Motorola in conjunction with the Bell System operated the first commercial mobile telephone service Mobile Telephone System (MTS) in the US in 1946, as a service of the wireline telephone company.
The A-Netz launched 1952 in West Germany as the country's first public commercial mobile phone network.
First automatic system was the Bell System's IMTS which became available in 1962, offering automatic dialing to and from the mobile.
The Televerket opened its first manual mobile telephone system in Norway in 1966. Norway was later the first country in Europe to get an automatic mobile telephone system.
The Autoradiopuhelin (ARP) launched in 1971 in Finland as the country's first public commercial mobile phone network
The B-Netz launched 1972 in West Germany as the country's second public commercial mobile phone network (but the first one that did not require human operators to connect calls)
I don't see Samsung listed there as the first company to use Wireless.
People seem to think all communication/networking patents are under the guise of a "fair usage license", similar to the dispute between Nokia and Apple. That is not the case.
The Nokia/Apple patent dispute revolved around the licensing of specific GSM patents, which are a necessity to creating a device that works on that network. Since that is the only way to go about communicating with the network AND are part of the GSM standard, Nokia was required to have them open to license by any company.
Now, in regards to these unnamed patents, some seem to think that they fall under the same statues as the GSM patents. Until we know more about what specific patents Samsung is claiming Apple has violated, we cannot draw a conclusion. That being said, I'm sure Samsung's lawyers understand the difference that I outlined, and wouldn't waste their time with a lawsuit if the above applied.
That being said, if these are in fact legitimate patent violations, Apple put themselves in this position. Samsung didn't file suit against Apple a year and a half ago when the iPhone 4 came out, did they? No, yet they claim that device is in violation as well. Apple's been putting lots of pressure, some of which unwarranted, on Samsung, who, while separate from their mobile division, is a partner. That's just disrespectful.
The short version: watch what you claim. Unless you know the specifics of the patents and the licensing agreements around them, don't spew data points from prior disputes as facts in this one.
The Nokia/Apple patent dispute revolved around the licensing of specific GSM patents, which are a necessity to creating a device that works on that network. Since that is the only way to go about communicating with the network AND are part of the GSM standard, Nokia was required to have them open to license by any company.
Now, in regards to these unnamed patents, some seem to think that they fall under the same statues as the GSM patents. Until we know more about what specific patents Samsung is claiming Apple has violated, we cannot draw a conclusion. That being said, I'm sure Samsung's lawyers understand the difference that I outlined, and wouldn't waste their time with a lawsuit if the above applied.
That being said, if these are in fact legitimate patent violations, Apple put themselves in this position. Samsung didn't file suit against Apple a year and a half ago when the iPhone 4 came out, did they? No, yet they claim that device is in violation as well. Apple's been putting lots of pressure, some of which unwarranted, on Samsung, who, while separate from their mobile division, is a partner. That's just disrespectful.
The short version: watch what you claim. Unless you know the specifics of the patents and the licensing agreements around them, don't spew data points from prior disputes as facts in this one.
If you live by fire....
As much as I like their products, they should be taken down a notch. Unfortunately, I have been waiting for an iPhone 5 so long that I don't want anything to derail its already tardiness. Samsung could do some damage here; possibly, add to the delay. But, Apple really is just one huge law firm. So, before it gets too sticky, they will reach some type of agreement.
Patent law is not going to get any easier anytime soon...
As much as I like their products, they should be taken down a notch. Unfortunately, I have been waiting for an iPhone 5 so long that I don't want anything to derail its already tardiness. Samsung could do some damage here; possibly, add to the delay. But, Apple really is just one huge law firm. So, before it gets too sticky, they will reach some type of agreement.
Patent law is not going to get any easier anytime soon...
Because companies normally don't sue their partners.
As I said, Apple started this. Now, if these are accurate claims, they're going to be facing the same crap they've been piling on Samsung for the past how many months.
+1. "arn" cited a Korean news but he should know the news might be provided by Samsung to manipulate public internet opinion.
I agree partially but I truly believe Apple believes Samsung was/is so close to Apple that Samsung decided to ride the iPad coat-tail by making one that looks a lot like the iPad and things escalated from there.
We could argue about Star Trek all day but I don't think anybody in their right mind believes some other company came out with the iPad device first. At least one that wasn't vaporware.
If anything Apple should be prepare to sue the sht out of everyone with tablets and smartphones.
Let me conclude this thread here, the photo of the best buy stating the release date of the iPhone 5 to the Sprint carrier could possibly delay another week or so due to this law suit? Think about it. If it delays I'll be pissed I need a new phone damnit. Stop ***** around and get it out on the date, I'm sick of these major companies that just demand more credit when they've already got all the credit in the ***** phone itself.
Let me conclude this thread here, the photo of the best buy stating the release date of the iPhone 5 to the Sprint carrier could possibly delay another week or so due to this law suit? Think about it. If it delays I'll be pissed I need a new phone damnit. Stop ***** around and get it out on the date, I'm sick of these major companies that just demand more credit when they've already got all the credit in the ***** phone itself.
Who said anything insulting? I said I disliked the line of thinking; I'm making no judgments regarding the company allegedly espousing this line of thinking. Anyway, I still find it more classless to announce legal action against a product whose use of IP is unknown versus taking legal action based on information that you can at least back up with some evidence (now I realize that the quality of that evidence is open to debate). It's sort of like announcing that you do not like someone before you have even met them. And if Apple is planning to use essential Samsung IP under fair licensing terms, I suspect Apple will advise Samsung as soon as the specs of the new phone are published. To try to produce a product using Samsung's essential communications IP without paying the appropriate licensing fees would be downright stupid, because there is no way of escaping having to pay at some point. However, if Samsung has had this issue since the release of the iPhone 4 more than a year ago and has not addressed this issue by now, I find it hard to sympathize with them. I guess the fly in the ointment will be whether Samsung will demand cross-licensing as part of any fair use terms. Apple previously has had objections to such demands in similar situations.
Now I have no problem with Samsung defending its IP, it's just the accusation of deliberate infringement before a product is even revealed to the public that is causing my objection.
