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

[entatlrg]

Every time I see that picture, I cringe.



Good artists copy; great artists steal. —Steve Jobs (originally Pablo Picasso)

Oops, you misquoted. You left out a keyword, "ideas".

 

[Oletros]

Read some research:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13...-inc-macintosh-innovator-duplicator-litigator

What are you even talking about?

Daniel Eran Dilger? Really? And you call that research?

 

[zipa]

Ok, but not with a capacitive screen. That is, you had a pressure-sensitive pen, but with a screen which didn't support multi-touch. Samsung, once again, innovated

The N900 could do multi-touch. Resistive has nothing to do with that.

 

[MrX8503]

Obviously they should not have to, but there's a couple of details that most people aren't aware of:

1) Qualcomm does not sublicense Moto IP to its users. Instead, Motorola has an agreement to not sue Qualcomm customers... EXCEPT in the so-called War Clause, which states that if a customer sues Motorola, all bets are off. The legality of this is still in question, I think, but if it is legal, Apple is no longer protected.

2) The ITC noted that Apple's claim of protection in the US due to patent exhaustion, ONLY EXISTS IF you buy the parts in the USA. However, most of Apple's purchases are made outside in order to avoid paying US taxes. In other words, if Apple doesn't pay US taxes on a part, they do not earn US specific protections.

If the legality of Motorola's actions is questionable, then it has to be proven legal first before Apple loses protection from Qualcomm.

Yep, and German courts favor the license holders. They're the ones who said that injunctions were always okay even with SEPs.

Basically, what we have here is a typical power struggle between new EU officials, and old national courts. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

Why does it matter German courts favor license holders? The rate hasn't been disclosed yet and you're already throwing stones. EU investigated and found Motorola in violation.

It wasn't a court, so there's no guilt involved. Moreover, the idea that injunctions is abusive, was not clearly set in the law. Therefore nobody broke any existing laws. Just opinions.

As the EUC noted, "The Commission decided not to impose a fine on Motorola in view of the fact that there is no case-law by the European Union Courts dealing with the legality under Article 102 TFEU of SEP-based injunctions and that national courts have so far reached diverging conclusions on this question."

The same goes for the US. In both situations, the prohibition against asking for injunctions was a NEW thing, taking place AFTER the requests were filed. Obviously if it was illegal, the filing could never have taken place. It's retroactive enforcement. It's like getting a ticket when the speed limit changed a week after you drove through. And it likely would not have come up at all if Apple wasn't involved.

All that said, I personally agree that injunctions should not be allowed right away, but only after a time limit has passed and a licensee still refuses to pay an arbitrated rate.

The point is that Motorola (and Samsung) is barred from using their SEPs to ban Apple devices.

 

[kdarling]

If the legality of Motorola's actions is questionable, then it has to be proven legal first before Apple loses protection from Qualcomm.

Yes, that's why I said it.

Why does it matter German courts favor license holders? The rate hasn't been disclosed yet and you're already throwing stones.

Nobody is throwing stones. Simply pointing out that, just as East Texas courts tend to favor patent holders, German courts do as well. This might affect the rates that the court decide on.

The point is that Motorola (and Samsung) is barred from using their SEPs to ban Apple devices.

Yep, unless Apple refuses to abide by whatever rate the court decides on (in the case of Motorola), or doesn't negotiate (in the case of Samsung).

I think we're going in circles now
.

 

[k995]

Pinch to zoom as an idea is not patentable, obviously. You can only patent implementations of the idea.

Euh you should really check out the patent system.

Same as blur effect. You cannot patent the blur effect on a picture. But you can patent your own implementation of the blur effect, like Adobe and force other image editing apps to go around your patent to apply the blur.

And there have been patents on agriculture methods that have been done for hundreds of years yet some company can patent them today like it's a new thing.

Thats cause its a broken system.

The slide to unlock shows this, absurd. And again apple abuses this to attack competitors .

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Read some research:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13...-inc-macintosh-innovator-duplicator-litigator

What are you even talking about?

Research?!?!? From Appleinsider? bwahahahaha. I can't tell if you are serious right now? No, really, are you serious?

So you are expecting me to believe the story in an "article" on a website renowned for it rabid and absolute Apple fanboyism over ex PARC employees and dozens of other neutral Internet sources, documentaries and books? There's even plenty of ex-employees from Apple that support this version of events. Apppleinsider are on the extreme lunacy fringe of pro-Apple bias.

I'll also point out that the article you link to doesn't dispute the facts i've mentioned, it just skews their interpretation to the extreme bias of Apple.

Your "article" tries to make it sound like Apple entered into an agreement to license Xerox technology. They never did. Whilst Xerox management might have had this in mind as their end game when deciding to give Apple access to PARC, no agreement was ever reached. Apple gave them relatively minor compensation solely for access, Jobs immediately recognised the value of the technology and then pretty much terminated any further discussion of a partnership and copied the things I have previously mentioned.

I'm not claiming they stole anything (Xerox were compensated for PARC access), just that they exploited naive Xerox management and copied a lot of the technology (and if they had done that same thing today, they would have been sued into oblivion).

But hey, if you're the kind of person that is trying to cite Appleinsider as a source of information there isn't much point continuing this discussion...

 

[neolancer07]

Typo in the article, it should be Shamesung.

More like SamSUCK!! With this company "success" and growth has been primarily based off copying others, all they have been doing with their plot to copy everything from Apple is no longer surprising.

 

[Z400Racer37]

American would invade another country and kill people if they decided to stop selling oil to America.

Is that worse?

Um..... Yes? I don't get the point...

 

[Zellio]

Reading this topic, it seems like half the people here's first phone was an iPhone . While the iPhone 3g was my favorite choice, it was a much more simplistic os then symbian, windows mobile or blackberry

 

[PieCake]

Reading this topic, it seems like half the people here's first phone was an iPhone . While the iPhone 3g was my favorite choice, it was a much more simplistic os then symbian, windows mobile or blackberry

Please don't say that ***bian word

My friend used to say "The N95 is the best phone EVER" - even when I knew little about mobiles back then, even I knew ***bian was poop.

 

[brdeveloper]

Please don't say that ***bian word

My friend used to say "The N95 is the best phone EVER" - even when I knew little about mobiles back then, even I knew ***bian was poop.

Symbian S60 and the higher end N-Series phones were way better than the earlier versions of iOS. You didn't have a touchscreen, but you could configure a native voip client over 3G or Wi-Fi, you had GPS (with the still good Nokia Maps application), autofocus camera, front camera, IR transmitter, dual core processors, real multi tasking, 3G networking. That old gray N95 had all of these features. It could even run a Python interpreter supporting various phone's hardware interfaces, so you could develop apps pretty fast with a scripting environment. I could even run a Sega Master System emulator from which I used to play Phantasy Star.

Actually, apart from zooming and touching stuff, you could do way less stuff with an iPhone than with a N95. Your argument is defeated by a big margin.

 

[brdeveloper]

The N900 could do multi-touch. Resistive has nothing to do with that.

Sorry, didn't know about that. My first Nokia phone with a touchscreen was the N8 which was capacitive. But I know it wasn't funny using the Nokia 5800 Xpressmusic touchscreen... I imagine that the N900 touch experience was as painful as the earlier, resistive-screen Nokias.

 

[zipa]

I imagine that the N900 touch experience was as painful as the earlier, resistive-screen Nokias.

Well, the N900 was about as good as a resistive screen gets, and it was really meant to be used with a stylus. As such, plus the fact that it was like having a Linux workstation in your pocket, the experience was not bad at all.

Too bad the production was quite limited, and the device itself was very expensive and "geeky" by nature, so it never became a big hit.

Anyway, enough of that, I'm waaay off topic here.

And I do think that the Note-lineup is rather innovative, and I'm probably getting the Note 4 as a work phone this fall.

 

[DarthMoops]

There is much more to life then having fancy toys.

...or feeling the need to list them in your signature.

 

[macduke]

...or feeling the need to list them in your signature.

Good straw man argument. Let me clue you in to something: This is a tech site! People have been listing our gear in our signatures here (well I have since 2007, but on other sites before this) for years going back before these iOS devices. It provides context when I'm discussing things on the forum and forget to mention what it is that I have that I'm referring to. I actually have a career in design and photography, so they aren't toys. They're business expenses. They put food on the table for my wife and kid. I have to stay up on technology to make a living. And as I mentioned before, I only have the Xbox on there so that people don't think I'm a total Apple fanboy. I enjoy other technology too, especially my Xbox. It's an example of a company being innovative without completely ripping off Apple. What a concept!

If you go to edit your signature in your User CP, this is the example signature given by MacRumors: "24" Aluminum iMac, 2.8 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 750 GB HD ; 4 GB iPod nano". You're supposed to list your gear! Again, this is a tech site. Good grief.

I don't get why I'm a bad guy for owning technology that helps feed my baby, and listing it on a technology website, but this other guy is not considered a bad guy for thinking that technology should be developed regardless of all consequence. You people need to get your priorities straight. Wow. This is the last time I'm responding to this thread. The lack of common sense is killing me.

 

[MarkyMarc43]

I buy whatever product is the best. It isn't some philosophical question to me.

Replace best with cheapest...

----------

Does that include Apple products that contain Samsung components?

This comment has been SO overused...

Try something original. Or copy.

----------

Now look who is making accusations without knowing a person. I must say that I know quite a bit about the products that I purchase. It's actually a point of pride for me that stay in the loop as much as possible to make sure that I'm not buying from unethical companies. I was quite critical of Apple when the whole Foxconn issue was happening, and I feel quite satisfied with the steps that they have taken to monitor and audit their manufacturing partners, as well as newer initiatives to provide environmental reports, build green facilities, and more.

You're missing the point. It has nothing to do with what this guy purchased. I agree that many people are unaware of where their products come from, and that is a shame. As I said, I try my best to research everything that I purchase, but I'm not perfect. My hope is that the broader population would take interest in researching what these companies are doing. My comment about ethics was based on the fact that he doesn't seem to care as long as the end product is great—consequences be damned—and I believe that pretty well qualifies him as lacking in the ethics department. One of my biggest pet peeves are people who willfully choose to be ignorant—especially when so much information is available freely online and only takes mere seconds to search for.

As for my signature, I see that you're fairly new to this site. That's ok, and welcome. We discuss technology here, among a variety of other topics. But mainly technology and specifically Apple technology. In my signature I have listed a sampling of the technology that I use in my daily life as a web, app, and print designer and photographer. I use said technology to provide income for my family. In my field it is important to stay aware of new technology or risk becoming irrelevant. What would you have me place there instead? Stats about how much money I've donated to charity, or how many people I've personally helped over the course of my life? That is a rather weak argument that my signature on a tech forum dictates my priorities in life. Lots of people on here list their gear, especially back in the old days when the primary discussion was Macs (I lurked here going back to 2003-04 before finally creating an account because I had some inside information to share about the original iPhone launch). Having a signature that contains the technology that I use provides context when I'm writing about certain issues on the forum, especially since I sometimes forget to list in my response what I have as it is often important to certain discussions. And honestly I only stuck the Xbox on there so that people wouldn't think I'm a total fanboy. I do enjoy other technology and I'm a little bit of a gamer. But if I'm following the logic of your response, I should list off everything I've accomplished in life instead to prove my worth or something? On an Apple website? That would be odd and frankly rather self-centered. I try to live a somewhat private life (I'm not on FB, for instance), especially when it comes to listing life accomplishments or good works. The whole "For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted." mindset, you know? I'll keep my signature for now, thank you. Again, this is a technology site and I make a decent living using said technology. I don't define myself with my MacRumors account information.

Finally on to your last point. I know these big companies are out there to make money and don't care about my opinion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's capitalism. But when I see a company openly being unethical, I vote with my dollars and share my opinion on the matter with those who aren't educated on the matter. I'm well known by friends, family and coworkers as the guy they come to for tech advice when they are looking to purchase. I have my own small sphere of influence, and in turn those people have their own spheres of influence. I call it like I see it. Perhaps I'm overly optimistic that people will educate themselves—and not just on what companies are doing. I'm far more worried about what governments are doing to stifle freedom and other social issues. I spend a fraction of the time on here compared to the time I spend on other forums ranging from a variety of topics—politics, privacy issues, net neutrality, family, and others related to my trade such as photography and design.

In closing, Samsung doesn't hold a candle to the human rights abuses that go on around the world, but this isn't the proper forum to discuss such matters. The only reason I'm even bothering with this response is that it amazes me that people see an entity being openly unethical and think it's somehow OK. I'm of the mindset that if you give these guys (governments, corporations, etc) an inch they'll take a yard. Or sometimes a mile! Best to put our foot down once we see the offense happen so that we can remain a free, peaceful and respectable society. This applies to all ethics violations. Nobody caring is how things get out of control.

Very well thought out and written. Gave me a little faith back.

 

[Michael Goff]

Replace best with cheapest...

----------



This comment has been SO overused...

Try something original. Or copy.

----------



Very well thought out and written. Gave me a little faith back.

I wasn't aware the MBA was the cheapest.

 

[MarkyMarc43]

And that is absolute BS.

Image

Image
both from 2006 and there and there were others , all going in the same direction .

Tech moved on plenty of companies were going that way and apple made the best phone of the bunch .



Then I doubt you have that.

Plenty of launchers for Windows mobile that gave simular experience and hardware was no different over the phones .

----------



Too simple an example, its more a b c d and e all have simular ideas, F G and H created new/better/smaller hardware

X Y and Z take all those ideas add some new and all create products that looking at same ideas and taking simular hardware resumbles each other .

Y is the most succesfull in sales and PR and tries to convince everyone else is copying them after they released their unique product.





Btw I do think samsung copied apple, just like apple copied others trying to have good and bad guys in such a situatio is simply stupid.

I for one, think in terms of right or wrong. Ethical or non-ethical. Moral or amoral.

I will not give my money to any company who are openly thieves.

You can continue to perpetuate the tired old narrative, that Apple stole...blah, blah, blah. And it is tired. Nothing since the Microsoft theft has gotten this big, and that's why this is getting all the bandwidth. It's the same as the 90's. Until something else shiny comes along.

 

[mib1800]

I for one, think in terms of right or wrong. Ethical or non-ethical. Moral or amoral.

I will not give my money to any company who are openly thieves.

You can continue to perpetuate the tired old narrative, that Apple stole...blah, blah, blah. And it is tired. Nothing since the Microsoft theft has gotten this big, and that's why this is getting all the bandwidth. It's the same as the 90's. Until something else shiny comes along.

How about a recent case. Apple got the US president to veto the ban on Iphone when Apple was found guilty of infringing Samsung SEP patents. This is a big enough news isnt it? Apple is still considered to have stolen when it used the SEP patents without paying. Apple just hid behind the SEP excuse to not pay. If you say this is not morally wrong of Apple then it just stinks of hypocrisy.

How about Apple made use of the US patent office to patent what are essential prior arts (slide-unlock, universal search, hyperlinking, rectangular shape/icon) and use it to sue and derail the competition when Apple is clearly losing ground to the competition. Can you justify this as not morally wrong of Apple to use such un-gentleman and below the belt tactic to compete? You can't isnt it?

If you said Samsung is a thief then Apple is also a thief.

 

[linuxcooldude]

How about a recent case. Apple got the US president to veto the ban on Iphone when Apple was found guilty of infringing Samsung SEP patents. This is a big enough news isnt it? Apple is still considered to have stolen when it used the SEP patents without paying. Apple just hid behind the SEP excuse to not pay. If you say this is not morally wrong of Apple then it just stinks of hypocrisy.

How about Apple made use of the US patent office to patent what are essential prior arts (slide-unlock, universal search, hyperlinking, rectangular shape/icon) and use it to sue and derail the competition when Apple is clearly losing ground to the competition. Can you justify this as not morally wrong of Apple to use such un-gentleman and below the belt tactic to compete? You can't isnt it?

If you said Samsung is a thief then Apple is also a thief.

Your talking about two different patents. The first, standard essential patents, are ones which are required to give phones its most basic functions. The SEP patents was vetoed by the President because it can be used by the patent holder to take out their competitors in the market place.

Its not about Apple stealing anything ( Because by law Samsung has to license out its essential patents to competitors ) but Samsung and Apple could not come up with a licensing fee acceptable to both and haggling over the price.

The second are patents that are mostly features that are not required for the phone to operate, such as software which can be easily fixed by changing the code.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

Does that include Apple products that contain Samsung components?

No, that justs a firm "no" on their products. I have no objections against Samsung as a component supplier. Exactly the correct position.

 

[mib1800]

Your talking about two different patents. The first, standard essential patents, are ones which are required to give phones its most basic functions. The SEP patents was vetoed by the President because it can be used by the patent holder to take out their competitors in the market place.

That's what Apple is trying to do with its current prior arts patents. Apple is more interested in a ban than fine. Apple always pursue the ban option in every lawsuits. Why did Apple go this direction if they just wanted compensation? Apple wanted to kill Samsung via lawsuits/ban not through competition in the market.

Its not about Apple stealing anything ( Because by law Samsung has to license out its essential patents to competitors ) but Samsung and Apple could not come up with a licensing fee acceptable to both and haggling over the price.

If you are the owner (samsung) and Apple tells you they will pay 10 cents per device and then say you have to pay $40 per device for Apple prior arts patents, how would you feel? I would tell Apple to go fly kite. Apple is abusing the SEP to not pay. As simple as that. A thief using the broken law to justify stealing, that's what it is. Other companies are able to have deals with Samsung, so Apple holding out with ridiculous demands is the main culprit.

The second are patents that are mostly features that are not required for the phone to operate, such as software which can be easily fixed by changing the code.

And they are prior arts. What rights Apple to demand for ridiculous amount based on prior arts? Apple is the robber here. It is like: " Either pay as I demanded or I sue the hell out of you in MY OWN COUNTRY WHERE THE JURY WILL FAVOR ME. "

 

[k995]

I for one, think in terms of right or wrong. Ethical or non-ethical. Moral or amoral.



I will not give my money to any company who are openly thieves.



You can continue to perpetuate the tired old narrative, that Apple stole...blah, blah, blah. And it is tired. Nothing since the Microsoft theft has gotten this big, and that's why this is getting all the bandwidth. It's the same as the 90's. Until something else shiny comes along.

They all stole they all maximize profits they all lie . If you really believe in this you cant buy appke or almost any product from any larger company .



But you dont you want to simply believe your favorite brand is better then the rest .

 

[maflynn]

[MOD NOTE]
Stop the bickering.