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.
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 Requests to Add iPhone 5 to U.S. Patent Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
lol crack is whack.... more humans want iphone 5 than samsung anything.. FACT
More humans want/buy Taylor Swift and Britney Spears albums that any others, therefore they are the greatest musical artists out. /logic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
----------
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)
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.
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.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/15...umts-cross-licensing-agreement-prior-to-trial.
Yep, Apple continues to be the patent bully.
Yep, Apple continues to be the patent bully.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/15...umts-cross-licensing-agreement-prior-to-trial.
Yep, Apple continues to be the patent bully.
Well isn't that interesting
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.
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.
Right. The ranking in that article is Qualcomm, Nokia, Samsung, LG.
I.e. Samsung does have valuable LTE patents.
The patents in this lawsuit are about 3G, though, aren't they?
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/15...umts-cross-licensing-agreement-prior-to-trial.
Yep, Apple continues to be the patent bully.
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.
Exactly right. Apple's management has no ability to run a company as diverse as Samsung.
It has to be, because the models that are targeted don't have LTE and Samsung just added iPhone 5 to the lawsuit.
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.
Taylor Swift and Britney Spears both use iphones... so i dont see your point..
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.
And in other news - the lawsuits have actually increased sales for the SIII...
http://www.localytics.com/blog/2012/samsung-benefiting-from-iphone-comparisons/
Must be all that free publicity.
http://www.localytics.com/blog/2012/samsung-benefiting-from-iphone-comparisons/
Must be all that free publicity.
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.
Yep, which is why FRAND patents with guaranteed income are worth more in the long run.
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).
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.
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.
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.