Samsung's Patent Cases Against Apple to Ramp Up in 2012

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
48,654
10,077



Following a recent commitment to step up its attacks on Apple over claims of patent infringement related to 3G technologies, Samsung appears set to launch into the primary phase of its campaign during the first half of 2012. While some initial posturing has seen some early discussions in court over Samsung's claims, Samsung appears to be opting to forego seeking temporary injunctions against Apple and attempting to proceed as quickly as possible to full trials.




Notably, Bloomberg reports that Samsung has won an early trial date of March 2012 for its case against Apple in Australia, with the judge accepting that proposal over Apple's opposition that requested a trial date of August 2012. With the decision, the Australian trial will come before Samsung's action in the United States ramps up with an International Trade Commission case in May or June.
Australia Federal Court Justice Annabelle Bennett today ordered that a trial on Samsung's claims be held in March. Cupertino, California-based Apple had opposed an early trial, with its lawyer Stephen Burley saying the company needed more time to prepare the case and favored a hearing in August.

Samsung, the world's biggest maker of smartphones last quarter, dropped its bid for a temporary injunction barring Apple from selling the iPhones and iPad 2 and instead is seeking an early hearing. The Australian trial will be a prelude for Samsung in its U.S. case before the International Trade Commission on similar claims, which Burley said will be heard in May and June.
Samsung is currently targeting the iPhone 4, iPad 2, and iPhone 3GS with its Australian lawsuit, although it will presumably attempt to add the iPhone 4S to the lawsuit at some point as well. With the trial not set to kick off until March, Samsung may also find itself needing to add other new devices such as iPad 3, which is rumored for an early 2012 launch.

Court cases between Apple and Samsung are also playing out in a number of other countries, but Australia has been one of the focus points for the two companies, with Apple having won an injunction blocking the sale of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the country. Samsung has appealed that ruling, with a court date set for late next week to begin arguing its case on the topic. The company had previously indicated, however, that it might scrap the device's launch entirely in Australia if the injunction was granted, given that it would prevent Samsung from having it on the market in time for for the lucrative holiday shopping season.

Article Link: Samsung's Patent Cases Against Apple to Ramp Up in 2012
 

JS77

macrumors regular
Jun 18, 2008
231
2
Global corporations squabbling over patents... Yawn...

wake me up when you have a headline about an actual Mac Product/Device/Software rumor.
 

uaecasher

macrumors 65816
Jan 29, 2009
1,289
0
Stillwater, OK
This wouldn't have happened if Apple didn't try to sue the world.
i wasn't convinced that samsung was copying apple until today when i saw my class mate in university with a tablet and i told him "which iPad 2 version do you have" and i was shocked that it was a galaxy tab 10.1, they even copied the smart cover...
 

slrandall

macrumors 6502
Jun 15, 2011
412
0
Apple: "Don't take our industrial design, or use an OS that copies our UI and is written in an unlicensed language."

Samsung: "Yeah, well ... <takes those things> ... don't infringe upon our 3G implementation! It's such a big deal that one whole engineer gets a whole few hours to look at your implementation. Yeah, we already get paid by Qualcomm for your implementation. And there's really no justification for this lawsuit ... To the high road we go."
 
Last edited:

D4F

Guest
Sep 18, 2007
914
0
Planet Earth
i wasn't convinced that samsung was copying apple until today when i saw my class mate in university with a tablet and i told him "which iPad 2 version do you have" and i was shocked that it was a galaxy tab 10.1, they even copied the smart cover...
You sure that was on a uni??
Were you lost?
 

ConErck

macrumors newbie
Aug 2, 2011
3
0
Apple's opposition that requested a trial date of August 2012
Yea, I bet. Just about in time when the next iPhone will be released/announced so that the trial for the 4S would become irrelevant.

Nice try.
 

Ciclismo

macrumors 6502a
Jun 15, 2010
824
64
Germany
I'm not going to lie to you, but the concerted effort Samsung is putting into its lawsuits makes 'em look like whiny little bitches.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,330
12,817
Midlife, Midwest
Yeah, it's probably FRAND tech. But you forgot to ask to license it! So to the high road we go."
Apple's implementation of the Samsung 3G patents comes via their use of Qualcomm baseband chips. Qualcomm is a Samsung licensee, and pays royalties to Samsung for every chip they make.

This is what is known in patent law as the "Exhaustion Doctrine." And it makes a lot of sense, both ethically and practically.

Say a drug store sell a particular pill, that is made by a drug company, that pays a royalty to to the drug patent holder (a research institution.) "Patent Exhaustion" means that the patent holder cannot sue the drug store because they already got paid once for their patent. It also means that the drug store doesn't have to go and negotiate licensing deals for every medicine they carry.

That is basically analogous to what is happening here. Samsung already got paid for every Qualcomm baseband chip in the iPhone. But they seem to think that because Apple is successful, they deserve to get paid twice.
 

Ballis

macrumors 6502a
May 27, 2008
891
792
Oslo, Norway
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

I really hope Samsung gets screwed badly from this.
 

iBug2

macrumors 601
Jun 12, 2005
4,124
366
Apple's implementation of the Samsung 3G patents comes via their use of Qualcomm baseband chips. Qualcomm is a Samsung licensee, and pays royalties to Samsung for every chip they make.

This is what is known in patent law as the "Exhaustion Doctrine." And it makes a lot of sense, both ethically and practically.

Say a drug store sell a particular pill, that is made by a drug company, that pays a royalty to to the drug patent holder (a research institution.) "Patent Exhaustion" means that the patent holder cannot sue the drug store because they already got paid once for their patent. It also means that the drug store doesn't have to go and negotiate licensing deals for every medicine they carry.

That is basically analogous to what is happening here. Samsung already got paid for every Qualcomm baseband chip in the iPhone. But they seem to think that because Apple is successful, they deserve to get paid twice.
Thanks for clearing it out.
 

Oletros

macrumors 603
Jul 27, 2009
6,002
60
Premià de Mar
Apple's implementation of the Samsung 3G patents comes via their use of Qualcomm baseband chips. Qualcomm is a Samsung licensee, and pays royalties to Samsung for every chip they make.

This is what is known in patent law as the "Exhaustion Doctrine." And it makes a lot of sense, both ethically and practically.

Say a drug store sell a particular pill, that is made by a drug company, that pays a royalty to to the drug patent holder (a research institution.) "Patent Exhaustion" means that the patent holder cannot sue the drug store because they already got paid once for their patent. It also means that the drug store doesn't have to go and negotiate licensing deals for every medicine they carry.

That is basically analogous to what is happening here. Samsung already got paid for every Qualcomm baseband chip in the iPhone. But they seem to think that because Apple is successful, they deserve to get paid twice.

Ah, can you link me the Australian sentence where says that?

Or is only what Apple says and you take it as a fact?
 

Piggie

macrumors G3
Feb 23, 2010
8,363
2,646
i wasn't convinced that samsung was copying apple until today when i saw my class mate in university with a tablet and i told him "which iPad 2 version do you have" and i was shocked that it was a galaxy tab 10.1, they even copied the smart cover...
Perhaps that says more about you than Samsung! :D
 

Tailpike1153

macrumors 6502a
Aug 31, 2004
625
5
Bellevue, WA
I wonder if who would win if Tim Cook had to fight Samsung's Mobile division chief in cage match. A cage match would definitiely be easier to follow than all the legal manuvers.
 

Kaibelf

Suspended
Apr 29, 2009
2,445
7,435
Silicon Valley, CA
Ah, can you link me the Australian sentence where says that?

Or is only what Apple says and you take it as a fact?
Fine, I'll put it in terms you can understand. When you buy a television, do you buy the television and take it home, or do you also have to go and pay additional, separate charges for the "license" to use every single component it contains? No, you buy the television, and therefore, you paid the TV manufacturer, which in turn paid the creator of the components for the use of that technology. I would HOPE that it would be the same anywhere in the world, but if you want to hint that somehow Australia doesn't follow the rules of commerce that are understood to underpin just about all modern commerce... well, that's just sad.
 

Oletros

macrumors 603
Jul 27, 2009
6,002
60
Premià de Mar
Fine, I'll put it in terms you can understand. When you buy a television, do you buy the television and take it home, or do you also have to go and pay additional, separate charges for the "license" to use every single component it contains? No, you buy the television, and therefore, you paid the TV manufacturer, which in turn paid the creator of the components for the use of that technology. I would HOPE that it would be the same anywhere in the world, but if you want to hint that somehow Australia doesn't follow the rules of commerce that are understood to underpin just about all modern commerce... well, that's just sad.
I'll put you in term you can understand:

-Apple says it has paid the licenses because Qualcomm has licensed their chips
-Samsung says no
-Apple and Samsung pay lawyers a fortune to decide who is right

I don't know why Apple and Samsung pay such a fortune to IP lawyers when they can pay you because you have it perfectly clear.

And still waiting that sentence.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,637
41,598
USA
It's quite simple.

No one here is qualified or knows the specifics of the case. What Samsung is claiming and/or whether they are correct.

But that won't stop a lot of hot/cold air running through this thread about Apple vs. the World, copying, fandroids, apple fanboys, yadda yadda. It's an ugly vicious cycle here where the only true benefit is hits to the website and message board from everyone posting back and forth about something they aren't remotely qualified to post about. Myself included.

Let the companies and courts deal with the issue.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.