Samsung Requests to Add iPhone 5 to U.S. Patent Lawsuit

iGrip said:
Apple can't afford to buy Samsung. And even if it could, the current management would have no idea of how to properly run such a large, diversified company.

----------



Because Apple is using their tech and refusing to pay the requisite fees.
Click to expand...

So Samung's current management can't run Samsung? That just doesn't make sense.

Just because you buy doesn't mean you wipe out the current staff always.
 
unplugme71 said:
So Samung's current management can't run Samsung? That just doesn't make sense.

Just because you buy doesn't mean you wipe out the current staff always.
Click to expand...

No, Apple's current management could not run Samsung.

Yes, they could keep redundant management and not eliminate any positions within Samsung, and have disproportionately high overhead, but that would be foolish.
 
rendevouspoo said:
More humans want/buy Taylor Swift and Britney Spears albums that any others, therefore they are the greatest musical artists out. /logic.
Click to expand...

I think both are garbage but when you sell the most songs/albums, saying you are the best is really not that far out there.

So, yes....you could argue that Swift/Spears are like Apple in that small comparable way.
 
iphoneclassic said:
While trying to implement LTE, Apple lost universal iPhone implementation. Which is actually backward step.

Instead of designing with required 3 Antennae for Verizon/Sprint, Apple decided Verizon/Sprint customers can live without Voice+Data over LTE.

New Kindle HD 4G LTE has a single chip supporting 10 different LTE networks.
Click to expand...

It certainly supports 10 bands, but that's because it's using some 8 or so chips to do it. Not a single chip.

And simultaneous voice/data can be done on 2 antennas, but Apple decided that it wanted better reception over more features, so their 2 antenna implementation can't do it.
 
battlefieldfan2 said:
Indeed... Samsung and LG aren't exactly software companies. They innovate on hardware, which has a pretty high R&D cost.
However, Apple never innovated with software. They took other people's ideas and made a good-looking device, but artistic talent does not equate to innovation.

Yes, but not today. Apple is a designing company now. They leave the technological and software innovations to other companies and copy off them.

I forgot about IBM. I'll nominate IBM over Samsung and LG. Toshiba and Qualcomm aren't even close.
Click to expand...

Yeah, IBM's done some good research too.

Apple innovates in hardware yet spends much less doing so than many other companies. Just because their R&D budget is smaller doesn't mean they're less innovative. You might need to read up on the history of ARM.

----------
battlefieldfan2 said:
Probably something regarding LTE (Which is not FRAND, so stop saying it is).

To my understanding, every smartphone vendor pays Samsung a fee for using LTE. Apple is the only one who doesn't.
Honestly, Apple needs to stop stealing Samsung's technology. Designing a rectangle with rounded corners is something a 2-year-old can do.
Making critical innovations in LTE, however, is well worth patenting and protecting. Apple is really a hypocrite. They claim that someone else making an electronic device in the form of a rectangle which took 0 ingenuity and $0 in R&D cost is considered copying and a threat to innovation everywhere, but when Samsung spends a shitton developing critical LTE technology, they think freeriding on Samsung's tech when everyone else is paying isn't a threat to innovation.
If Samsung gets the idea that people are allowed to steal their technology and not pay a fine, why would Samsung spend billions in R&D? What Apple is doing is a true threat to innovation.
Click to expand...

Dude, get over it. You're totally overstating Samsung's role in LTE development. Do tell us, what LTE technology do you claim is "stolen" from Samsung?

Got patents?

Got cites?

Or are you going just going to spout ignorant BS like "LTE isn't a Qualcomm technology" or "not FRAND" meanwhile analysts publish that Qualcomm and Nokia each individually contributed more to LTE than Samsung with regards to essentiality?

(http://newsletters.articleonepartne...sential Patents Now and in the Future_AOP.pdf)
 
hchung said:
It certainly supports 10 bands, but that's because it's using some 8 or so chips to do it. Not a single chip.
Click to expand...

I guess you know better than Amazon. For some reason they think it has one 2.2mm thin chip.

"Kindle Fire HD 8.9" features the latest 4G LTE technology for ultra-fast mobile broadband, letting you connect to the internet, stream, and download at speeds even faster than Wi-Fi. Unlike some 4G devices, Kindle Fire HD includes support for 10 bands, so even when you're in a place with no 4G LTE network you'll fall back to the fastest available network and won't lose coverage. All this with no compromises to battery or weight - Kindle Fire HD combines the most power-efficient LTE chipset available with a custom-designed 4G wireless modem that's only 2.2 mm thin."

http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Fire-4G-LTE/dp/B008GFRDL0
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
iphoneclassic said:
I guess you know better than Amazon. For some reason they think it has one 2.2mm thin chip.

"Kindle Fire HD 8.9" features the latest 4G LTE technology for ultra-fast mobile broadband, letting you connect to the internet, stream, and download at speeds even faster than Wi-Fi. Unlike some 4G devices, Kindle Fire HD includes support for 10 bands, so even when you're in a place with no 4G LTE network you'll fall back to the fastest available network and won't lose coverage. All this with no compromises to battery or weight - Kindle Fire HD combines the most power-efficient LTE chipset available with a custom-designed 4G wireless modem that's only 2.2 mm thin."

http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Fire-4G-LTE/dp/B008GFRDL0
Click to expand...

Amazon isn't claiming one 2.2mm chip.
A 2.2mm modem isn't the same thing as a 2.2mm chip.

Thinking a little more, there's a good possibility that my guestimate of 8 or so might be low. Anyhow, I'll see how far off I was when the teardowns get posted.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Technarchy said:
Well isn't that interesting
Click to expand...

Not all that interesting and nothing we didn't know already.

Things to consider are who has what patents and what value are they. Samsung considers X to be fair, Apple says otherwise. That doesn't make Apple or Samsung any more or less right than the other. The bottom line is - they couldn't agree on terms.
 
iGrip said:
No, Apple's current management could not run Samsung.

Yes, they could keep redundant management and not eliminate any positions within Samsung, and have disproportionately high overhead, but that would be foolish.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt Apple's Senior VP of Hardware could manage Apple products and Samsung products given how diverse their product lines are and how many products are made.
 
hchung said:
.... meanwhile analysts publish that Qualcomm and Nokia each individually contributed more to LTE than Samsung with regards to essentiality?

(http://newsletters.articleonepartne...sential Patents Now and in the Future_AOP.pdf)
Click to expand...

Right. The ranking in that article is Qualcomm, Nokia, Samsung, LG.

I.e. Samsung does have valuable LTE patents.

lte_patent_values.png
The patents in this lawsuit are about 3G, though, aren't they?

Taz Mangus said:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/15...umts-cross-licensing-agreement-prior-to-trial.

Yep, Apple continues to be the patent bully. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That article says that Apple wanted to change how royalties are paid, in an attempt to lower their own royalty costs to use IP essential to the radio chip, down to a few cents or dollars.

At the same time, Apple wanted to charge Samsung $30-40 per unit to use Apple's non-essential GUI IP.

Basically, Apple understandably wants cheap rates without the IP cross-licensing that everyone else engaged in.
 
unplugme71 said:
I highly doubt Apple's Senior VP of Hardware could manage Apple products and Samsung products given how diverse their product lines are and how many products are made.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. Apple's management has no ability to run a company as diverse as Samsung.
 
kdarling said:
The patents in this lawsuit are about 3G, though, aren't they?
Click to expand...

It has to be, because the models that are targeted don't have LTE and Samsung just added iPhone 5 to the lawsuit.

kdarling said:
At the same time, Apple wanted to charge Samsung $30-40 per unit to use Apple's non-essential GUI IP.
Click to expand...

The difference it the "essential" part, you can not realistically make a mobile phone without 3g or LTE and still be competitive. What was reported in the articles here earlier was that as soon Samsung ended their agreement with Qualcomm, Apple reached out for a licensing deal but the figures was neither "fair" or "non-discrimatory" so the negotiations stopped, and that's what Tim Cook has said in interviews as well. What was offered was not fair, but unreasonably high.
 
GorgonPhone said:
Taylor Swift and Britney Spears both use iphones... so i dont see your point..
Click to expand...

My point is that the 'best' if often not the masses consume. Take music, electronics, politics, ect for example. The masses use Dell Computers (I think) but does that mean they make the best computers? No, not at all.
 
rendevouspoo said:
My point is that the 'best' if often not the masses consume. Take music, electronics, politics, ect for example. The masses use Dell Computers (I think) but does that mean they make the best computers? No, not at all.
Click to expand...

okay well iPhone is the BMW and android is the honda so you choose..lol
 
GorgonPhone said:
okay well iPhone is the BMW and android is the honda so you choose..lol
Click to expand...

If that were true, it would be iOS is the BMW and android is the honda but that's not true either. If we're talking about phones, the iPhone is a BMW and SG3 is a Mercedes. Both amazing, but different features.
 
subsonix said:
The difference it the "essential" part, you can not realistically make a mobile phone without 3g or LTE and still be competitive.
Click to expand...

Yep, which is why FRAND patents with guaranteed income are worth more in the long run.

What was reported in the articles here earlier was that as soon Samsung ended their agreement with Qualcomm, Apple reached out for a licensing deal but the figures was neither "fair" or "non-discrimatory" so the negotiations stopped, and that's what Tim Cook has said in interviews as well. What was offered was not fair, but unreasonably high.
Click to expand...

Apple has pretty much claimed that all the FRAND rates are "unfair" or "too high". And that might even be true, but the price scale isn't covered by the ETSI FRAND agreement. Patents are still patents and can be charged for.

Samsung and Motorola's starting rate of 2.4% is also right in line with other rates, such as Qualcomm's 3.4%. It's all about negotiating the rates down.

For example, Apple said the same thing about Nokia's FRAND patents being "unfair", and they ended up settling before trial (including supposedly cross-licensing a few things).
 
kdarling said:
Apple has pretty much claimed that all the FRAND rates are "unfair" or "too high". And that might even be true, but the price scale isn't covered by the ETSI FRAND agreement. Patents are still patents and can be charged for.
Click to expand...

I agree that they can be charged for. But I guess that the question is when and what is "fair". Non-discriminatory would at least mean that one party is not discriminated by charging more to lessen the competitive power of that party. At least that is in my understanding one of the purposes of FRAND.

kdarling said:
Samsung and Motorola's starting rate of 2.4% is also right in line with other rates, such as Qualcomm's 3.4%. It's all about negotiating the rates down.

For example, Apple said the same thing about Nokia's FRAND patents being "unfair", and they ended up settling before trial (including supposedly cross-licensing a few things).
Click to expand...

Well, this is what we will see come court day I guess. It's pretty much a given that both these companies are going to stick to their story. It may also be that it's some kind of negotiation strategy Apple uses.
 
subsonix said:
I agree that they can be charged for. But I guess that the question is when and what is "fair". Non-discriminatory would at least mean that one party is not discriminated by charging more to lessen the competitive power of that party. At least that is in my understanding one of the purposes of FRAND.
Click to expand...

Right, the license has to be:

Fair. They can't unfairly require buying non-related products or require unfair product restrictions.

Non-discriminatory. They must not discriminate as to who can get a license.

This doesn't mean the royality rate has to end up the same for everyone, though. Obviously a company with better credit, buying licenses in more quantity, and/or willing to cross-license, get better deals.

For good example, Nokia is said to only pay about 3% TOTAL for all the WCDMA patents from all the dozens of companies involved... simply because of all its cross-licensing. Whereas much smaller companies without any IP to trade might have to pay 15% or even more.
 
But surely an unreasonable licensing fee, could also be viewed as "unfair" or "discriminatory" if it's so high that it in practice is clear that the owner is taking advantage of it's position, or even making it impossible for the other party to launch a product commercially.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top