Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

These patent lawsuits are ridiculous, but I can't say apple doesn't deserve it. Especially the ********* they pulled with Samsung and their tablet, so childish.

I don't particularly like Samsung either, quite frankly this is a bad guy vs bad guy battle. Samsung can't make a long-lasting reliable phone to save their life, and Apple has the worst ethics in the tech business, possibly only topped by Sony.

I mean did Apple really expect them to stand down and let them just block their products?

These patent wars only inhibit innovation. Especially when you have companies that think they own shapes.
 
callme said:
.....but I hang around in forums for other mobile phones cos I have no life and I wish I had bought an iPhone. I could visit HTC forums but that would be boring because no one is interested in them.
Click to expand...

I believe that Apple sell more products than phones, someone can have an HTC phone and coming here because it has a Macbook or an iMac or an iPod
 
callme said:
Let's play this out...

Apple buys screens, memory, processors from Samsung.

Apple uses screens, memory, processors to build iPhones and iPads.

Samsung stops the sale of iPhones and iPads by suing Apple.

Apple stops making iPhones and iPads.

Apple stops buying screens, memory, processors from Samsung.

Samsung looses major customer.
Click to expand...

Other electronic makers will buy componets from samsung. Or samsung will just sell their own phones/tablets.
 
MH01 said:
Cook or Jobs mention that Apple is still in the innovation business? Going through the above it seems Apple has moved into the Legal Business. I prefer the old Apple, new Apple is a spoilt prat...stomping thier feet and throwing tantrums.
Click to expand...

Apple was ALWAYS in the "legal business." Going back to the 80s. They have always been extremely litigious. Seems they went into the industry knowing what to expect. Turns out their prescience was well-founded.

The reason you're seeing more litigation now is that Apple has much broader interests in different segments of the market. They aren't just about computers and Mac OS anymore.
 
iEvolution said:
These patent lawsuits are ridiculous, but I can't say apple doesn't deserve it. Especially the ********* they pulled with Samsung and their tablet, so childish.

I don't particularly like Samsung either, quite frankly this is a bad guy vs bad guy battle. Samsung can't make a long-lasting reliable phone to save their life, and Apple has the worst ethics in the tech business, possibly only topped by Sony.
Click to expand...

Childish?

I see so Apple spend millions of dollars developing the iPhone and iPad, including a great deal of time and money on the physical design, look and feel.

But you think it is OK for another company to them come along and just copy that design.

Do you think Apple is a charity?
Do they just sit back and watch companies copy their designs after they have spent a fortune developing them?
Other companies managed to design phones and tablets that were not copies of the iPad (RIM, HP, Sony), but somehow Samsung's device looks visually the same, how strange.
You don't think Samsung were trying to gain an advantage by designing their device to look like the iPad?
 
BC2009 said:
Yes, you are right.... First Samsung has to prove Apple infringes -- but Apple has basically admitted that by saying these patents should be subject to FRAND licensing and that you can't make a mobile phone without them. So first, Samsung has to prove infringement, then Apple is going to make a case for FRAND licensing.
Click to expand...

No WAY. So Apple in fact admits Samsung is innovative, developed something on its own?
 
if it took millions of dollars of research to come up with a rectangular slab of screen with a bezel then thats an even bigger ripoff than how much the 2012 London games logo cost the organizing committee
 
*LTD* said:
Apple was ALWAYS in the "legal business." Going back to the 80s. They have always been extremely litigious. Seems they went into the industry knowing what to expect. Turns out their prescience was well-founded.

The reason you're seeing more litigation now is that Apple has much broader interests in different segments of the market. They aren't just about computers and Mac OS anymore.
Click to expand...
This is a great point. People forget that in the industry, so much of the behind the scenes stuff involves patents, copyrights, and intellectual property rights. As a company, Apple has always been on the vanguard in regard to this legal, often ugly side of business.
 
dba7dba said:
No WAY. So Apple in fact admits Samsung is innovative, developed something on its own?
Click to expand...

These standards-essential patents are similar to Apple's case with Nokia that was resolved a little while ago. Same thing, standards-essential patents (which, incidentally, happened to be owned in that case by a mobile giant that has become the very picture of stagnation, laziness, mismanagement, and non-innovation.)
 
subsonix said:
I think that very few, if anyone here, have enough insight in the details to determine if the use fall under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory. :)
Click to expand...

True, but in essence, Samsung themselves have made this claim by stating that their patents are "essential" to wireless communications. If you've GOT to use a certain standard as part of the basic infrastructure of a market, then generally that is FRAND territory.

Everyone had the opportunity to create a tablet computer using the same basic design principles and user interface Apple chose, before Apple did it (and took steps to protect their efforts and IP). There is also no requirement to take what Apple did and copy it in order to have a product on the market that would serve the same purpose of the iPod.

If Samsung has "essential" patents that Apple hasn't been licensing, then the can negotiate a license fee for them - Samsung can't really hold them hostage if they are indeed "essential" for Apple (or any other company) to market a wireless communication device.

Trying to do a "pot/kettle" analysis here really isn't valid, since the two types of intellectual property we are discussing likely don't merit the same kinds of protections, and enforcement. One is copying something a competitor did in order to steal some of their sales. The other is implementing technology that is universally accepted and used by all players as the very basis that all other product design is built upon.

APPLES and oranges here, and this isn't based on fanboyism.

----------
dba7dba said:
Or samsung will just sell their own phones/tablets.
Click to expand...

So they loose billions to Apple in component sales, and then have a hard time competing with Apple product because they don't want to innovate, but rather copy?

Doesn't sound like a good plan to me.
 
callme said:
Childish?

I see so Apple spend millions of dollars developing the iPhone and iPad, including a great deal of time and money on the physical design, look and feel.

But you think it is OK for another company to them come along and just copy that design.

Do you think Apple is a charity?
Do they just sit back and watch companies copy their designs after they have spent a fortune developing them?
Other companies managed to design phones and tablets that were not copies of the iPad (RIM, HP, Sony), but somehow Samsung's device looks visually the same, how strange.
You don't think Samsung were trying to gain an advantage by designing their device to look like the iPad?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it means they have no faith in their own product so they need to make sure to shutdown the nearest competition to establish a monopoly. When Apple has no competition they don't bother upgrading anymore.

Its a loss for both Apple users and Samsung users.

The only similarities between the two devices is the shape, so apparently you think its ok for apple to take ownership of shapes? The concept of the tablet has been around a LOOOOOOONNGGG time before Apple came along with the glorified large iPod Touch.

Unless the packaging looks the same and it says Samsung iPad, which isn't the case, no I think the lawsuit falls under frivolous. They do not even look the same outside of the general shape. So apparently you think companies should be able to take ownership of shapes?

If you confuse the two devices then you are seriously lacking in the brain department, the design isn't costing apple a dime, they just want to establish a monopoly in the tablet market via lawsuits and sending messages to other companies.
 
Last edited:
phillytim said:
Apple should build it's own manufacturing plant here in the United States!

That would provide jobs to our people, keep our money in our Country and be quite the catalyst for change away from outsourcing ourselves literally to bankruptcy!
Click to expand...

this would make a great movie.

Will never happen in our lifetime.
 
phillytim said:
Apple should build it's own manufacturing plant here in the United States!

That would provide jobs to our people, keep our money in our Country and be quite the catalyst for change away from outsourcing ourselves literally to bankruptcy!
Click to expand...

just think how much more the phone would cost!!! would you still buy it if it cost twice as much??? i know i would not...
 
KnightWRX said:
LGPL requires that source code be distributed with the binaries. Same as the GPL. The only thing the LGPL permits that the GPL does not is linking said code dynamically/statically to other non-GPL code.

Because of the LGPL licensed attached to KHTML, Apple has to release the source if they distribute binaries.

Webkit however is not a singular entity, it is a group of different projects of which 1 is based on KHTML.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the other projects are are also LGPL and BSD licensed. LGPL states that any modifications you make the project must be divulged yet are able to be protected...Apple did not have to make Webkit open source.

----------
BC2009 said:
Yes, you are right.... First Samsung has to prove Apple infringes -- but Apple has basically admitted that by saying these patents should be subject to FRAND licensing and that you can't make a mobile phone without them. So first, Samsung has to prove infringement, then Apple is going to make a case for FRAND licensing.
Click to expand...

That makes sense.
 
Iconoclysm said:
Exactly, the other projects are are also LGPL and BSD licensed. LGPL states that any modifications you make the project must be divulged yet are able to be protected...Apple did not have to make Webkit open source..
Click to expand...


so, we're saying the same, modifications to KHTML MUST be released. Other parts with different licenses have the grants.

And no, you can't fork any GPL program and not release the sources, you ALWAYS must to provide sources for the GPL parts
 
Iconoclysm said:
Exactly, the other projects are are also LGPL and BSD licensed. LGPL states that any modifications you make the project must be divulged yet are able to be protected...Apple did not have to make Webkit open source.
Click to expand...

The LGPL does not state any such thing, and Apple did have to make "Webkit" open source (at least, the HTML/XHTML rendering engine which is based on KHTML).

Oletros said:
And no, you can't fork any GPL program and not release the sources, you ALWAYS must to provide sources for the GPL parts
Click to expand...

You can't have GPL parts/non-GPL parts in a fork of a GPL source tree. If you include GPL code into a work, that work becomes a derivative work and must itself be licensed under the GPL. The LGPL makes an exemption from this for linking code as a library (refers to the work as a Combined Work and provides exception to license coverage there).
 
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