Samsung's 'Infringe First and Stall as Long as Possible' Strategies Are Nothing New

[BaldiMac]

I think you're lost in the thread this was the starting post "what has this company ever invented - as in, launching a totally new and successful class of consumer product *or* a product that's so different from the competition that it completely changes the market?"

I'm not lost. How does what you said change the fact that the iPhone meets the qualifications that you just quoted?

If you ready the thread you see a lot of people who seem to think apple invents just about everything and after a couple of months of reverse engineering samsung comes with the same.

So? I don't. That's just another strawman argument.

I am simply still giving the same argument as before everybody looks at each others in and even outside the market and copies what works .

Yep. But there are different kinds of copying. Some legal, some not. Some attempt to trade on another's name. Some don't.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2045...cts-claims-of-apple-pinch-to-zoom-patent.html

US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent

Yeah. So why did you say "apple never even got that patent"? They did get the patent.

 

[fredaroony]

JB wasn't released until 2012 with Project Butter. Only then Android reached performance parity with iOS. Even with Project Butter, I question Android's performance at the time.

What Android devices do you own and use regularly?

 

[SlCKB0Y]

I've seen that regurgitated and miscontrued so many times, i just had to correct you.

That quote was taken from Picasso, an artist, and it wasn't meant to be taken literally.

Good artists copies a subject and represents it in their art, just like a photo whereas great artists steal the very essence of that subject and creates a masterpiece where it could very well be the subject itself.

hence Steve Job's quote was meant as a pursuit for perfection, to create masterpieces that "steals" the very essence of what they had envisioned, rather than merely creating a soul-less copy of it, this philosophy is reflected in Apple's products that focuses so much on the actual user experience rather than merely copying and having a specs and feature race.

How do you put your pro-Apple spin on "we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas"

How do you reconcile the Mac, the GUI, the mouse and PARC? It was Apple directly copying....

In IT folklore Bill Gates certainly has been attributed an opinion on this

"Well, Steve, I think there's more than one way of looking at it. I think it's more like we both had this rich neighbor named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it."

 

[ghost of jobs]

How the hell are Samsung being allowed to get away with this? Something needs to be done to stop their incessant infringement of other companies valuable, innovative patents.

U mean like rounded corners lol

 

[rdlink]

How do you put your pro-Apple spin on "we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas"

How do you reconcile the Mac, the GUI, the mouse and PARC? It was Apple directly copying....

In IT folklore Bill Gates certainly has been attributed an opinion on this

Ah, the "Apple copied Xerox" myth. Credibility gone.

 

[Madd the Sane]

How do you put your pro-Apple spin on "we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas"

How do you reconcile the Mac, the GUI, the mouse and PARC? It was Apple directly copying....

IIRC, Xerox was doing nothing (or little to nothing) with what was at PARC. They did this because they feared that it would destroy the photocopy industry. Also, Jobs wasn't too sold on the idea of the GUI until he saw it at PARC.

[T]he iPhone has not changed the way we live our lives.

The iPhone? perhaps not. The iPad, on the other hand, has. Quite a lot: people are still finding beneficial uses for the iPad, replacing many places where a PC or laptop was the chosen computing device.

Ah, the "Apple copied Xerox" myth.

So Apple Xeroxed Xerox?

 

[MrX8503]

What Android devices do you own and use regularly?

I owned an HTC EVO 4G. Android hasn't won me back since then. I've learned way back during the WinMo days up to the HTC EVO that UX is #1. I'm not easily impressed with specs anymore.

 

[mattintoshmac]

So many ill-informed, defensive goons on this forum, it's a like watching teenage boys bragging about how much they "know" to girls they're trying to impress. You guys need to get a life and quit the ad hominem crap; come on, it's time to paint some luminous powder all over yourselves... AND LIGHTEN UP

 

[swy05]

These threads always give me a good laugh. It's like some of the people are beyond ridiculous with how defensive they are of a company.

It's a damn tech company IT'S NOT YOUR MOM/DAD/GIRLFRIEND/BROTHER. STOP BEING SO DEFENSIVE. IT'S PATHETIC.

These companies don't give a **** about you.

Every company steals/infringes. Even your beloved Apple. EVERY SINGLE COMPANY ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH.

Why are you so defensive and pro- (insert any company here.) Are you a founding member of the company? Do you own majority shares (And I'm not talking about some Joe Schmo's on here who own a thousand or two thousand dollars and think they're some major investor. )

There are some truly disgusting people here (the poster who mentioned that the U.S.A. should pull out of South Korea because of Samsung. Words do not even describe......) Or better yet "Hey, i refuse to buy anything that has Samsung on it. I'll only buy things that have their parts" HAHAHHA. People are laughing at you. You know how childish you look?

Don't be a sheep. Learn to think for yourselves. Having allegiance to a tech company is the most idiotic thing possible. I mean, are you serious?

Me, I have no allegiance to any company or operating system. I've used ios, android, windows, blackberry, etc.

I find something I like and it's a good deal with great specs, you bet your ass I'm going to jump ship in the blink of an eye. Doesn't matter if it's Samsung, Apple, or some unknown Chinese company.

Be an hungry educated consumer. Not a braindead sheep.

 

[kdarling]

So you think $12/device is fair? Apple was willing to pay a fair rate, but Motorola went ahead with an injunction against Apple anyway, which resulted into the European Commission threatening Motorola with a fine.

First off, it wouldn't likely be $12. See below.

Motorola only put out 2.25% as a first offer. Ditto for Samsung. The reason noted in the cases was that no one else had ever asked for a cash only rate.

According to the evidence, other deals had included some cross licensing, an arrangement that Apple does not want. Mind you, I think that's their prerogative, but it doesn't mean they should get the same deal as others who do cross license. That would not be Fair to those other licensees.

Is it an unusually high starting rate? Not from the major patent holders. For example, Apple currently pays Qualcomm over 3% of their device price for an IP license to use on the chips they already physically bought for $16 to $36. (An IP license does not come with the chips.)

Now, here's the kicker. Apple only pays Qualcomm the 3+% based on the ~$240 it costs them to get a boxed phone from Foxconn. If they did the same deal with Motorola, the royalty would not be $12, but more like $5 even at the highest non-negotiated rate.

Samsung tried to pull the same BS and was threatened with a fine too. They crawled back to the cave from which they came and avoided the fine by promising a 5 year period of no litigation based on SEP.

The EU agreements are a win for Motorola and Samsung and other SEP holders, as far as finally getting paid for Apple's seven years of using their IP.

Hereafter potential licensees can only using negotiations to delay for up to 12 months. After that, they have to agree to whatever royalty rate a court or arbitrator decides is FRAND.

If the licensee refuses, then the SEP holder is able to seek an injunction. (The EUC has said throughout their investigation, that injunctions were available if a licensee is not willing to make a deal.)

This is basically the same structure that the US DOJ came up with.

It'll be interesting to see what the rates end up being, and who decides it.

 

[rdlink]

IIRC, Xerox was doing nothing (or little to nothing) with what was at PARC. They did this because they feared that it would destroy the photocopy industry. Also, Jobs wasn't too sold on the idea of the GUI until he saw it at PARC.


The iPhone? perhaps not. The iPad, on the other hand, has. Quite a lot: people are still finding beneficial uses for the iPad, replacing many places where a PC or laptop was the chosen computing device.


So Apple Xeroxed Xerox?

Anyone who doesn't think the iPhone has changed the way we live our lives is crazy, and has been living under a rock for the last 10 years.

 

[krravi]

No it was founded on selling groceries... Get your facts straight.

----------



It does not make sense that Samsung copied the iPad to make the Samsung Galaxy Note.

I doubt even that was original!

 

[SockRolid]

And how would that happen? Under what premise?

TL;DR answer: "Android Silver."

Long answer: Google doesn't like Samsung's TouchWiz covering up the basic Android GUI. And Google probably doesn't like the fact that Samsung has killed off all other competitors in the Android handset (and tablet?) space(s?). So Google has started (yet another) initiative to try and get some devices out there with the pure Android experience. Could be a cold war brewing between Samsung and Google. Maybe that could be the premise.

 

[MrX8503]

First off, it wouldn't likely be $12. See below.

Motorola only put out 2.25% as a first offer. Ditto for Samsung. The reason noted in the cases was that no one else had ever asked for a cash only rate.

It was the only rate they offered. It may or may not have been $12, but 2.25% is a high rate nonetheless.

According to the evidence, other deals had included some cross licensing, an arrangement that Apple does not want. Mind you, I think that's their prerogative, but it doesn't mean they should get the same deal as others who do cross license. That would not be Fair to those other licensees.

Apple isn't required to do a cross licensing deal. Motorola/Samsung are required to do so because the patents are SEPs under FRAND.

Is it an unusually high starting rate? Not from the major patent holders. For example, Apple currently pays Qualcomm over 3% of their device price for an IP license to use on the chips they already physically bought for $16 to $36. (An IP license does not come with the chips.)

Now, here's the kicker. Apple only pays Qualcomm the 3+% based on the ~$240 it costs them to get a boxed phone from Foxconn. If they did the same deal with Motorola, the royalty would not be $12, but more like $5 even at the highest non-negotiated rate.

Apple already pays Qualcomm, and Qualcomm pays Motorola. What Motorola is doing is double dipping. Most likely how Apple is getting the $12 figure.

The EU agreements are a win for Motorola and Samsung and other SEP holders, as far as finally getting paid for Apple's seven years of using their IP.

Hereafter potential licensees can only using negotiations to delay for up to 12 months. After that, they have to agree to whatever royalty rate a court or arbitrator decides is FRAND.

If the licensee refuses, then the SEP holder is able to seek an injunction. (The EUC has said throughout their investigation, that injunctions were available if a licensee is not willing to make a deal.)

This is basically the same structure that the US DOJ came up with.

It'll be interesting to see what the rates end up being, and who decides it.

Is that why Motorola was hit with a fine? Motorola carried out an injunction against Apple despite Apple showing a willingness to pay. A major win? Hardly, considering Motorola/Samsung wanted Apple's devices banned by abusing their SEPs. There's a difference between paying a fair rate and not wanting to pay at all.

 

[k995]

I'm not lost. How does what you said change the fact that the iPhone meets the qualifications that you just quoted?

Perhaps for you but not for me, the gestures the hardware it all was already done. The actual innovation was the capacative multi touch screen which as far as I know apple didnt invent/create .

Yep. But there are different kinds of copying. Some legal, some not. Some attempt to trade on another's name. Some don't.

And samsung as well as apple both copy legal an illegal so again I see no reasn to make any difference between the 2 .

Yeah. So why did you say "apple never even got that patent"? They did get the patent.

No they didnt applying for a patent is different then getting it .

You like semantics so let me put it this way: apple does not have a patent for pinch to zoom.

 

[thekev]

You seriously think that the Prada phone has any similarity to the iPhone? Ive had both, and both are completly different phones. And comparing the early Windows Mobile to the iOS is a complete lack of objectivity. You seriously must be joking with me...

He was pointing out that they were trending toward larger screens and available of touchscreen user interfaces. Saying it's not like the iphone misses the point entirely.

 

[BvizioN]

Several users have made the statement that they won't buy any Samsung products and many have stated they hope they go out of business. But boy, I love my Apple products with those Samsung components.

Just to clarify few things, personally I am using galaxy S5 and fit gear at the moment so I am not to that point but I still dislike Samsung as a company for many reasons, though their products aren't as bad as many here say they are. But I do disagree with you though, Apple products may have one or 2 Samsung manufactured components inside but they are still Apple products. What these people mean is they won't buy products that Samsung sells. Buying an Apple product with one or 2 Samsung components is not exactly the same as splashing £570 on let's say GS5. Besides, if you really that picky about what the product is made of my guess is you will probably end up buying nothing ever. There will always be a little something in it that goes against your principles and believes.

 

[Oletros]

Is that why Motorola was hit with a fine?

Nor Motorola nor Samsung have been fined

 

[MrX8503]

Nor Motorola nor Samsung have been fined

Threatened with a fine. Samsung entered a 5 yr agreement to dodge theirs.

 

[Oletros]

Threatened with a fine. Samsung entered a 5 yr agreement to dodge theirs.

They were not threatened with anything, they were investigated and as a lot of companies, they changed some policies.

Motorola has not entered any agreement

 

[MrX8503]

They were not threatened with anything, they were investigated and as a lot of companies, they changed some policies.

Regardless they were found guilty. EU decided to not fine them in the end.
http://www.androidcentral.com/motorola-found-breach-eu-competition-law-escapes-fine

Motorola has not entered any agreement

Where did I say they did? Samsung entered a 5yr agreement and Moto had to drop their injunctions against Apple.

 

[alphaod]

This isn't limited to Samsung. There are many Korean companies that do this. Notably there are many cars that were blatantly copied from other car manufacturers.

 

[hchung]

"The Exynos 5410 saw limited use, appearing in some international versions of the Galaxy S 4 and nothing else. Part of the problem with the design was a broken implementation of the CCI-400 coherent bus interface that connect the two CPU islands to the rest of the SoC. In the case of the 5410, the bus was functional but coherency was broken and manually disabled on the Galaxy S 4. The implications are serious from a power consumption (and performance) standpoint. With all caches being flushed out to main memory upon a switch between CPU islands. Neither ARM nor Samsung LSI will talk about the bug publicly, and Samsung didn't fess up to the problem at first either - leaving end users to discover it on their own. " -Anandtech

Huh, I totally missed that part. I take back my statement that the Exynos is simply stock ARM designs and reaffirm your assertion that the 5410 was truly pathetic.

 

[dec.]

You must be new around here. Don't you know that you can't show facts to back up statements unless those statements are pro-Apple? If you use facts to back up statements against Apple, you're only going to incite the crowd. Somebody will soon try calling you a troll while several other people who might see the facts and realize that Apple wasn't first will just try to change the subject to something irrelevant to the topic at hand: "but who has the most profitable phone?" or "$1XX Billion dollars in the bank says otherwise" and so on.

I absolutely disagree. Your summary of the Macrumors Board is pretty amusing considering the high amount of posters on here that seem to have no positive sentiment towards Apple and their products at all. Alone in this thread there are a whole bunch of people who never ever would write something positive about Apple, the usual suspects*. It's fine, "I won't buy Samsung anymore11!" fanboys are annoying too, but you seriously seem to be the victim of your own personal RDF.

 

[hchung]

- Samsung Galaxy Note, first consumer phone/tablet to include a Wacom digitalizer
- Samsung SPH-M2100, first mobile phone with MP3 player
- Samsung SCH-r900, first mobile phone with LTE

Just a few among many.

Many what? You've listed one thing that isn't true, and two things that nobody's cared about.

The Galaxy Note was most certainly not the first consumer tablet with a Wacom digitizer.
Microsoft's Tablet PC initiative in 2000 led to a crap-ton of tablets on the market, all with active digitizer tablets. (Wacom was one of the most popular active digitizers)

The SPH-M2100 might have been the first cell phone with a MP3 player, but it most certainly didn't make any dent on the market whatsoever. Hell, no cell phone with an MP3 player was reasonably usable as a MP3 player before iPhone. Believe me, I've tried plenty of them.

Being first to LTE didn't help the SCH-r900. It did garner plenty of bad reviews for its poor battery life. The next several generation of LTE phones from all manufacturers continued the same trend.
Why? Because until basebands integrated both 3G and 4G, poor battery life was guaranteed by the fact that all those phones included two independent basebands. Nobody in their right mind would ever argue that powering two phones off one battery could have decent battery life.