Samsung Stepping Up Attacks on 'Free Riding' Apple in Patent Dispute

[KnightWRX]

If Samsung blocks us from getting the next gen iPhone, there may be a lot of consumers pissed at them, like me!

I'd be equally pissed if Samsung blocked sales of the iPhone over this than I am at Apple for blocking sales of the Galaxy tab in Germany. These injunctions are anti-consumer, no matter which side they originate from.

----------

u know what he means.. he is not really bothered just trying to make a funny.

I missed the humor in his post sorry.

 

[Trudy]

Samsung isn't suing Apple because they aren't paying enough, they are suing Apple because they infringe on their patents without offering compensation for them.

Apple has offered compensation. It's obvious from the article that Apple is already trying to pay royalties to Samsung on RAND terms, but Samsung refuses to accept, wanting to charge Apple a premium price. Apple wins if a court finds the patents should be available under RAND.

 

[Oletros]

Oh, so they took their design cues from the iPhone and iPod Touch then?

I don't know, the only thing I said is that the other op's said that they were presented before the iPad was presented, is a fact, nothing more.

 

[MacinDoc]

Patent lawsuits are a MAD scenario. Someone decided they wanted to play Thermonuclear War instead of a simple game of Chess and boom, here we are.

Now there's a reference I haven't seen in a long time (what is it, 30 years since that movie?).

Obviously, Apple is infringing on these patents, and Apple and Samsung disagree as to whether the patents should be subject to FRAND. Given that Samsung has previously stated that Apple essentially can't make a wireless phone without infringing, it escapes me how it could be argued that these patents shouldn't be subject to FRAND. Bottom line: Apple will have to pay, but the amount should be in line with FRAND terms, meaning that it should take into consideration what portion of the technology in the device is dependent on said patents, and should be in line with what other companies pay for using the same technology.

 

[Kevlar]

Cross licencing for everyone!

This was stupid at the start with apple starting it, and now getting even dumber. Apple obviously is trying to put Samsung into a spot where it can dictate the price it wants for licences to samsung patents.

 

[KnightWRX]

Apple has offered compensation. It's obvious from the article that Apple is already trying to pay royalties to Samsung on RAND terms, but Samsung refuses to accept, wanting to charge Apple a premium price. Apple wins if a court finds the patents should be available under RAND.

You have had access to the negotiations and the proposed terms on both sides to issue such a judgment ? Remember the Nokia case where similar comments were made and in the end, Apple wasn't quite in the right there either.

All we know is that negotiations have broken down, Apple is claiming the terms aren't F/RAND, Samsung is claiming they either don't have to be (optional patents that are not required for a standard) or that what they are offering is good enough.

Courts will decide the outcome, just like it did in Nokia vs Apple. Don't be in a hurry to pick a side, you might end up. Heck, don't even pick one to begin with.

 

[Trudy]

Why ? What does it matter really ? I have a Samsung monitor, a Samsung Fridge and a Samsung stove. My food tastes just as good today as it did yesterday, my Macbook Air still displays it's shiny nice graphics on my monitor and all is well in my little world.

Why should we feel bothered by what corporations do amongst themselves ?

Don't leave the laptop in the kitchen or you might find a battered and broken shell. Conversely, you might find all of your appliances deactivated.

 

[KnightWRX]

Cross licencing for everyone!

Apple has a history of refusing to license their non-essential patents to other companies.

 

[Clown Boy]

Apple are worse than Microsoft.

They totally suck ass.

 

[stevensr123]

Why ? What does it matter really ? I have a Samsung monitor, a Samsung Fridge and a Samsung stove. My food tastes just as good today as it did yesterday, my Macbook Air still displays it's shiny nice graphics on my monitor and all is well in my little world.

Why should we feel bothered by what corporations do amongst themselves ?

Some people sadly get attached to corporations, which is frankly ridiculous. Sure if you like their products, buy them. But don't get emotionally attached FFS.

Anyway this patent bollocks is exactly that, a load of bollocks which is getting more ridiculous each passing year.

 

[Iconoclysm]

So, how do you feel about the Apple deal to purchase the Nortel patents ? The FingerWorks patents and other IP ? The PA-Semi IP ?

What Apple got out of all of that was not to defend or attack anyone, they're actually using or planning to use those technologies.

 

[Trudy]

All we know is that negotiations have broken down, Apple is claiming the terms aren't F/RAND, Samsung is claiming they either don't have to be (optional patents that are not required for a standard) or that what they are offering is good enough.

Samsung says Apple can't build a cell phone without infringing on those patents. That makes them pretty obvious RAND material. Given they should be RAND, Apple needs to pay exactly what any other licensee is paying (the ND = "non-discriminatory" part of RAND).

 

[reticulate]

Apple has a history of refusing to license their non-essential patents to other companies.

Then again, they took KHTML and made Webkit, easily the best web rendering engine out there, and further respected the open source license.

It's not so easy to call these on a case-by-case. Which is probably the point - they all do this sort of thing to a lesser or greater degree.

 

[Iconoclysm]

I love all the silly comments... just let the lawyers have their fun.

The way I see it, this is just a flushing out of who owns what and who really owes who. It's just all part of the process and in the long run a good thing once it's all done.

All the silly analysis going on mean nothing unless you're a patent lawyer and have access to case... in which case, you're not here commenting.

Just enjoy the show.

I do agree, this process isn't a waste of any of our time or money, it's going to shape the future of these products for the better.

 

[Oletros]

Samsung says Apple can't build a cell phone without infringing on those patents. That makes them pretty obvious RAND material. Given they should be RAND, Apple needs to pay exactly what any other licensee is paying (the ND = "non-discriminatory" part of RAND).

No, not all the licensees pay the same for a FRAND patent

 

[EnergonCube]

If Apple is infringing - they should pay/negotiate/etc

If they aren't - then it should be dismissed.

End of story.

Well said, Captain Obvious. Well said.

 

[Oletros]

Then again, they took KHTML and made Webkit, easily the best web rendering engine out there, and further open-sourced the whole thing.

It's not so easy to call these on a case-by-case.

KHTML has GPL license, so Apple had no other option than to release their code for Webkit

 

[slrandall]

I'm only focusing on the hardware, because thats the part of the Apple-Samsung case that I don't agree with.

The UI argument I side with Apple on.

So then I agree with you.

 

[wovel]

If Samsung blocks us from getting the next gen iPhone, there may be a lot of consumers pissed at them, like me!

Actually it is an interesting point. Samsung does not have the centralized command required to recognize this though.

Evidently, from the actual reactions of the court, this "manipulation" wasn't quite as nefarious as the forum lawyers made it out to be.



Your "reality" picture supports Apple's case much more than Samsung's!

Indeed.

You guys really need to read the details of Samsung's complaint before you comment. Most of you just sound like idiots...

-t

Did you read it? Tells us your thoughts. What points have people made that you dispute. Highlight some of the real idiotic comments and explain why. I eagerly await your reply.

My Nokia tablet from 2007 has round edges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N810

this not-so-famous tablet from 17 years ago has black round edges..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...tablet-looks-just-like-iPad-17-YEARS-OLD.html

kids writing boards have round edges..

so your point is?

Round edges? The German case was on a community design registered by Apple around 1994. Making a point through oversimplification is fairly transparent...

Are you really claiming that JooJoo pad and HP Slate came before the iPad?

I think he was, it ws cute. The HP slate was not even an actual device.

Yet I have a HTC Sensation hmm funny that....

Buyer's remorse?

Apple are worse than Microsoft.

They totally suck ass.

I heard they dislike you as well.

 

[Iconoclysm]

Apple are worse than Microsoft.

They totally suck ass.

Well, I guess we see why you're posting/reading a site dedicated to Apple news.

 

[BC2009]

Patent lawsuits are a MAD scenario. Someone decided they wanted to play Thermonuclear War instead of a simple game of Chess and boom, here we are.

Apple may be right about some of those Samsung patents, but if they have not yet been classified for FRAND licensing, then Apple has to prove that in court. With regards to Samsung, Apple fired the first shot. Now we just got wait for the dust to settle to see who wins. I think the next steps look like one of the following:

1) Apple wins a decision that the Samsung patents should be subject to FRAND licensing terms and ends up paying Samsung royalties while still refusing to license their own patents to Samsung (Apple does not like to license).

2) Apple loses a decision that the Samsung patents should be subject to FRAND, and we immediately see a major cross-licensing deal between Apple and Samsung (similar to what Apple and Microsoft have between them).

There is a group of sales account managers at Samsung who are very very upset about the Galaxy line because Apple shifting suppliers is eating directly into their commissions. If Samsung really has alternative customers then they should just be expanding the supply and making even more money on that end.

 

[darkplanets]

To any legal buffs out there that actually read the court documents thus far:

(Assuming that the patent in question is FRAND, which given Samsung's statement is almost inevitable)

Did Samsung actually offer FRAND licensing or not? Did Apple even seek licensing? The outcome of these two questions determine this facet of the current legal spat, shifting the "front lines" of the overall negotiation table one direction or another. Of course this all is really just a facade for bringing each party to the negotiating table with terms favorable to their respective side.

 

[gnasher729]

Why doesn't Apple build it's own factories, don't they have enough money???

Apart from the fact that it is a pretty idiotic use of money to try to beat part manufacturers like Samsung at their own game (do you think Hertz and Avis should start building cars? ): How exactly would that help when Samsung sues Apple for patent infringement?

Apple has offered compensation. It's obvious from the article that Apple is already trying to pay royalties to Samsung on RAND terms, but Samsung refuses to accept, wanting to charge Apple a premium price. Apple wins if a court finds the patents should be available under RAND.

Any source for that? Looks too similar to the Nokia situation that has been resolved; you are not confusing that?

You have had access to the negotiations and the proposed terms on both sides to issue such a judgment ? Remember the Nokia case where similar comments were made and in the end, Apple wasn't quite in the right there either.

I bet some pretty stupid things have been said relating to Nokia vs. Apple, both for and against either side, but the facts were quite clear from the start that Nokia had valid patents, Apple acknowledged that the patents were valid, Nokia wanted more money + rights than Apple was willing to give, and Apple wanted to give less in money + rights than Nokia was willing to accept, and in the end they agreed on terms that were not published (except we know that Apple paid some amount of money for past sales and will be paying money for current and future sales, which was obvious to happen from the start).

 

[vrDrew]

To any legal buffs out there that actually read the court documents thus far.

As far as this particular thread is concerned there aren't any court documents, because all it is is Samsung's head of marketing mouthing off to the Korean press.

Lee, a senior vice president at Samsung, did not say what form the South Korean company's stronger stance would take or if there would be more lawsuits.

Which is sort of interesting if you think about it. Why would the head of marketing be talking about patent infringement?

Answer: Because even in its home market Samsung is getting the reputation as a shameless copycat. And getting one of its flagship product lines banned in countries like Germany and Australia doesn't paint too good of a picture back home.

 

[PlipPlop]

Actually it is an interesting point. Samsung does not have the centralized command required to recognize this though.



Indeed.


Did you read it? Tells us your thoughts. What points have people made that you dispute. Highlight some of the real idiotic comments and explain why. I eagerly await your reply.


Round edges? The German case was on a community design registered by Apple around 1994. Making a point through oversimplification is fairly transparent...



I think he was, it ws cute. The HP slate was not even an actual device.


Buyer's remorse?


I heard they dislike you as well.

Why would I have buyer's remorse? I have the best phone currently on the market until the Nexus Prime/Galaxy 3 or HTCs new phone come out It is also running the best mobile OS.