Sidebar Sidebar
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

Oletros said:
Can you show me any sentence that says that Samsung copied Apple or Apple copied Samsung? No trial has been started yet
Click to expand...

Sorry, but your lack of interest in reading the link places zero responsibility on my interpreting it for you.

Make of it what you will. Apple has won a preliminary injunction against Samsung. Samsung's appeal of that injunction has little chance of success.

Apple's Community Design Patent filed in 2004 was upheld; i.e., Samsung has utilized too many features of the Apple's minimalist iPad design as to be differentiated as a product. Shorthand; Samsung has copied the look of the iPad.

Samsung Germany is not allowed to distribute the Galaxy Tab 10.1 through any retail channels in Germany.

Apple has similar legal challenges to Samsung in the U.S.
 
TMay said:
Sorry, but your lack of interest in reading the link places zero responsibility on my interpreting it for you.
Click to expand...

I have read it, but I repeat, can you show me a SENTENCE where it's said that Samsung has copied Apple?

TMay said:
Make of it what you will. Apple has won a preliminary injunction against Samsung. Samsung's appeal of that injunction has little chance of success.

Apple's Community Design Patent filed in 2004 was upheld; i.e., Samsung has utilized too many features of the Apple's minimalist iPad design as to be differentiated as a product. Shorthand; Samsung has copied the look of the iPad.

Samsung Germany is not allowed to distribute the Galaxy Tab 10.1 through any retail channels in Germany.

Apple has similar legal challenges to Samsung in the U.S.
Click to expand...

Yes, a preliminar injuction, nothing more, the trial hasn't been started.

And Dutch judges had said that Samsung doesn't have copied Apple in regards to the same Community Design in the preliminary view. Alse the trial hasn't been started.
 
Yes, Samsung, please.... tell us exactly how the iPhone 5 violates your intellectual property rights. Details, please! We're dying to know :D
 
Go ahead Samsung.

Apple will most likely to win. Samsung doesn't stand a chance.
 
Benjamins said:
lol Samsung those are called standard essential patent, you are required to offer a fair licensing term ....
Click to expand...

And this, you mean, legitimizes (the hypothetical) theft of intellectual property? If Samsung is required to offer a fair licensing term, why havent Apple licensed the tech. instead of (hypothetically) stealing it?
 
Oletros said:
I have read it, but I repeat, can you show me a SENTENCE where it's said that Samsung has copied Apple?



Yes, a preliminar injuction, nothing more, the trial hasn't been started.

And Dutch judges had said that Samsung doesn't have copied Apple in regards to the same Community Design in the preliminary view. Alse the trial hasn't been started.
Click to expand...

I'll concede that there is no verbiage "copied" in the legal document.

The injunction regards the use of design elements that look similar to the iPad. Laymen as myself would call that copying, but it well might be that Samsung designers could not find any alternative to iPad's design. The Court acknowledged that there are other form factors for tablets on the market that do not infringe Apple's community design; hence, Samsung had alternatives available.

If Samsung goes to trial in Germany, next year, there is likelihood that they will still lose.

As for the Netherlands Court, basically the Court claims it has no jurisdiction. There is another case regarding the slide-to-unlock feature that has been questioned, but that is a different case.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/galaxy-tab-101-injunction-suspended-for.html

Slide to unlock

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/dutch-judge-considers-apples-slide-to.html
 
Dreamer2go said:
why do some of you want Samsung to win?
I just don't get it.

I live in Hong Kong, and we used to have people playing Playstation portable, or Nintendo DS Lite on buses, trams, subways etc
now it's all iPhone/ipod Touch people are playing with / or checking news with their phones. This really IMPACTED people's daily lives.

Apple's iPhone (a smartphone that works) and iPad (a tablet that makes sense) really changed the game, and now Samsung is copying their products from iPhone to iPad, trying to penetrate that market WITHOUT much innovation??

Hell, even the Samsung Series 9 looks like a Macbook Air to me....... and none of Apple's "Macbook" line looks like a laptop made by Dell or Compaq in the old days.....

I would love to see Samsung really REVOLUTIONIZE a product, not just copying their design, switch some here and there configurations, and call it "OUR PRODUCT!"

I am on Apple's side.

Call me an Apple fanboy or whatever, I don't care.
But when I have a product I love and changed MY life too, then that company has my full support.


Oh one more thing. I don't HATE Samsung or anything.
I love their TVs. Their innovation in Television is really great. One of my relative just bought a Samsung LED HDTV 55", and it's awesome.

But Samsung needs to innovate!
Click to expand...

psst.. Samsung files way more patents than Apple. Like 25% of your beloved iDevices are Samsung innovations. If anything, you need to rethink the meaning of the word "innovate". Innovation does not mean you have to create new product types each and every day.


p.s.

How the hell does the samsung 9 series look ANYTHING like a mac? And: You think Apple invented thin? That its design is super original? Its really not that hard to dig up computers looking much like the macbook pro that came out before the mbp, or an ultraportable that predates the mba (mba wasnt even - contrary to jobs statement - the thinnest computer out there when it launched). Clearly, Apple needs to innovate here, right? Not just copy the design of others? :- )
 
TMay said:
If Samsung goes to trial in Germany, next year, there is likelihood that they will still lose.
Click to expand...

Or not, is not the same court.

TMay said:
As for the Netherlands Court, basically the Court claims it has no jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Mmmm, no, Dutch court claimed that Samsung didn't infringed ANY Apple claims but the one regarding to bouncing effect in 2.3 Gallery App.

Dutch court has jurisdiction.


TMay said:
There is another case regarding the slide-to-unlock feature that has been questioned, but that is a different case.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/galaxy-tab-101-injunction-suspended-for.html

Slide to unlock

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/dutch-judge-considers-apples-slide-to.html
Click to expand...

No, the Slide to unlock is the same case na Dutch court has said that better Apple doesn't present this patent to the trial because they can be invalidated because prior art


Don't take Florian Mueller very seriously because he has an agenda, a Microsoft agenda and he has been debunked a lot of times regarding those trials.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
KiwiAdventure said:
It is easy just don't by Samsung. Just because Apple has been able to show the world how great products will sell at high prices the rest who cannot, give them a hard time. Samsung are losing big time in the courts. I for one will never buy Samsung branded products again
Click to expand...

And yet you will buy Samsung tech. every time you buy an Apple device, lining their pockets. Hard knock life, ey?

----------
MarsDude said:
First the article says

For as long as Apple does not drop mobile telecommunications functions, it would be impossible for it to sell its i-branded products without using our patents.

Then it says:

Samsung is unable to make any preemptive strikes against the iPhone 5 because Apple has yet to reveal any details on the device, meaning that Samsung has no product against which to lodge infringement claims at this time.

What about the current iPhone 4 ? Or all the previous ones? Apparently Samsung neglected for years to sue Apple for this patent infringement... What rights do they still have after such a long time?
Click to expand...

Exactly the same rights. Yes, exactly. Once more: Exactly the same rights. Got it?

----------
TMay said:
Sorry, but your lack of interest in reading the link places zero responsibility on my interpreting it for you.

Make of it what you will. Apple has won a preliminary injunction against Samsung. Samsung's appeal of that injunction has little chance of success.

Apple's Community Design Patent filed in 2004 was upheld; i.e., Samsung has utilized too many features of the Apple's minimalist iPad design as to be differentiated as a product. Shorthand; Samsung has copied the look of the iPad.

Samsung Germany is not allowed to distribute the Galaxy Tab 10.1 through any retail channels in Germany.

Apple has similar legal challenges to Samsung in the U.S.
Click to expand...

Upheld AND thrown out, by german and dutch courts respectively. Shorthand; Samsung has and has not copied the look of the ipad. Stop cherry-picking evidence, please.
 
divinox said:
And yet you will buy Samsung tech. every time you buy an Apple device, lining their pockets. Hard knock life, ey?

----------



Exactly the same rights. Yes, exactly. Once more: Exactly the same rights. Got it?
Click to expand...

If Samsung had a case, they would be able to obtain a preliminary injunction that would prevent Apple from shipping iPhone 5's, not to mention iPhone 4's.

I would argue that they have a weak case; probably FRAND bound patents if anything.

You argue otherwise.

Awesome.
 
TMay said:
If Samsung had a case, they would be able to obtain a preliminary injunction that would prevent Apple from shipping iPhone 5's, not to mention iPhone 4's.
Click to expand...

So, you think Apple doesn't have a case because they haven't obtained a preliminary injuction for Samsung phones?
 
TMay said:
I'll concede that there is no verbiage "copied" in the legal document.

The injunction regards the use of design elements that look similar to the iPad. Laymen as myself would call that copying, but it well might be that Samsung designers could not find any alternative to iPad's design. The Court acknowledged that there are other form factors for tablets on the market that do not infringe Apple's community design; hence, Samsung had alternatives available.

If Samsung goes to trial in Germany, next year, there is likelihood that they will still lose.

As for the Netherlands Court, basically the Court claims it has no jurisdiction. There is another case regarding the slide-to-unlock feature that has been questioned, but that is a different case.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/galaxy-tab-101-injunction-suspended-for.html

Slide to unlock

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/dutch-judge-considers-apples-slide-to.html
Click to expand...

No, it was the german court who claimed it has no jurisdiction. Second, the "different case" you are referring included the Community Design and a pile of patents. End result: Design got thrown out, and so did all of the patents, bar one (rubber-band effect in gallery app - stock Android 2.x or something like that. Tab, SII etc. were thus not infringing on anything, and the gallery app will be fixed soon enough - they have a month to do it).
 
divinox said:
And yet you will buy Samsung tech. every time you buy an Apple device, lining their pockets. Hard knock life, ey?

----------



Exactly the same rights. Yes, exactly. Once more: Exactly the same rights. Got it?

----------



Upheld AND thrown out, by german and dutch courts respectively. Shorthand; Samsung has and has not copied the look of the ipad. Stop cherry-picking evidence, please.
Click to expand...

Please link to the Dutch court decision that threw out the iPad Community Design case; all I see is that they determined that they lacked jurisdiction.
 
TMay said:
If Samsung had a case, they would be able to obtain a preliminary injunction that would prevent Apple from shipping iPhone 5's, not to mention iPhone 4's.

I would argue that they have a weak case; probably FRAND bound patents if anything.

You argue otherwise.

Awesome.
Click to expand...

Stop talking smack. Question was: What rights do Samsung have filing NOW, if Apple has always been infringing. Correct answer: Exactly the same.

I havent made any argument regarding the validity or strength of their claim. If you like ******** so much, go eat it. Dont force it on the rest of us.
 
divinox said:
No, it was the german court who claimed it has no jurisdiction. Second, the "different case" you are referring included the Community Design and a pile of patents. End result: Design got thrown out, and so did all of the patents, bar one (rubber-band effect in gallery app - stock Android 2.x or something like that. Tab, SII etc. were thus not infringing on anything, and the gallery app will be fixed soon enough - they have a month to do it).
Click to expand...

Link please to support your argument.
 
TMay said:
Please link to the Dutch court decision that threw out the iPad Community Design case; all I see is that they determined that they lacked jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Once again, it was the german court that raised concerns about jurisdiction (after ruling for all of Europe at first). Second, just google it, or search here on MacRumors.

Ill be nice and fetch you a graphical summary, courtesy of samsung:

Table_IP_Netherlands_Samsung_Apple.JPG


Addendum:

Hmm, strange. The SII i was playing with did not have the rubber banding. Or maybe it did... was quite drunk when i tried it out a couple of weeks ago.
 
divinox said:
Once again, it was the german court that raised concerns about jurisdiction (after ruling for all of Europe at first). Second, just google it, or search here on MacRumors.

Ill be nice and fetch you a graphical summary, courtesy of samsung:

Image

Addendum:

Hmm, strange. The SII i was playing with did not have the rubber banding. Or maybe it did... was quite drunk when i tried it out a couple of weeks ago.
Click to expand...

That doesn't jive with the Dusseldorf Regional Court on the Samsung Tab 10.1 injunction. That was related directly to Apple's Community Design Patent.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/09/translation-of-dusseldorf-regional.html
 
TMay said:
That doesn't jive with the Dusseldorf Regional Court on the Samsung Tab 10.1 injunction. That was related directly to Apple's Community Design Patent.
Click to expand...

Another time?

German court uphold preliminary injuction, Dutch court dismissed Apple claims about Community Design
 
igazza said:
I am not surprised, Apple started it :D
Click to expand...

Yes, they did. They essentially created the modern "smart phone" with touch screen and mobile apps. Put it together when Blackberry and it's more "Windows" style interface was popular. They also started mouse based GUI's for PC's and a lot of other stuff that became standard.

The point is that they are now trying to protect their innovative ideas when competitors just want to copy them.

If Samsung has patents that are essential for wireless communications, and there are no way to get around them, then they should already have precedent of licensing for them from other vendors. Apple would at worse just have to pay a reasonable fee and that would not stop Apple from keeping Samsung from infringing on it's patents which are not essential for anything, other than for Samsung to compete against competitors who are more innovative and design their phones better.

From what I understand, you are not allowed to use patents to squelch competition when it comes to implementing standards that all competitors MUST use (FRAND). I don't think this is going to really help Samsung to keep copying Apple without any difficulty.

Samsung doesn't have to use what is essentially Apple's designed interface to make smart phone. Doesn't have to look just like an iPhone either.
 
TMay said:
That doesn't jive with the Dusseldorf Regional Court on the Samsung Tab 10.1 injunction. That was related directly to Apple's Community Design Patent.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/09/translation-of-dusseldorf-regional.html
Click to expand...

Of course it doesn't Jive, that's the Dutch decision. Try to keep up. The German court first granted a EU wide injunction. Then the German court found out it had no jurisdiction to do so, only a court in Spain does where the Community Design registration was first granted.

Then the German hearing took place. The Dutch Court ruled in the interim that the Tab was non-infiringing and that the design registration would probably not hold up in court. Then we got the German decision that the injunction would remain on grounds that the Tab seemed to use similar design elements (remember kids, this was not trial, so there was no final ruling).

Your problem TMay is you seem to rely on the anti-Google machine that is Florian Mueller. Get a few less biased sources of reporting.
 
Oletros said:
Mmm, smartphoens prior to the iPhone had touch screens and mobile apps.

Perhaps you wanted to say "capacitive multi touch screens" and "integrated app store". And the former wasn't in the iphone 2G
Click to expand...

My Sony Ericsson W810 had an "integrated app store". It was of course managed by my carrier, but I had a link to "Games and Ringtones" right there on the phone to access it. It downladed the data over GPRS (you know kids, what came before EDGE).
 
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