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

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

VrDrew thats how olterous operates...

Just an observation, but Olterous often takes the stand of "show me the link, show me where it says... blah, blah, blah" (sorry if I offend you Olterous) when sharing input in discussions.

I've said this before and I'm gonna say it again. Just because you have not read it, or seen the news segment or are unfamiliar with what many already know, does not not make that collective common knowledge as irrelevant and non-existent Olterous. Obviously we all share a personal perspective, but it is rooted in what we know.

I don't mean to be overtly offensive towards you, but your stance at times is dismissive of the plainly obvious. Just trying to elevate the discussion thats all.

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

Or is only what Apple says and you take it as a fact?
Click to expand...
 
uaecasher said:
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...
Click to expand...

Do you mean the smart cover that Apple blatantly copied from a third-party vendor (Incase)? That one??
 
samcraig said:
Question - mostly because I'm too lazy to google it. Was that a SAMSUNG product (the case) or a 3rd party case. Because if it was 3rd party - that's hardly an argument.
Click to expand...

Third party, but officially licensed by Samsung even though it violated a patent. They now stopped selling it.
 
BLUELION said:
Just an observation, but Olterous often takes the stand of "show me the link, show me where it says... blah, blah, blah" (sorry if I offend you Olterous) when sharing input in discussions.

I've said this before and I'm gonna say it again. Just because you have not read it, or seen the news segment or are unfamiliar with what many already know, does not not make that collective common knowledge as irrelevant and non-existent Olterous. Obviously we all share a personal perspective, but it is rooted in what we know.

I don't mean to be overtly offensive towards you, but your stance at times is dismissive of the plainly obvious. Just trying to elevate the discussion thats all.
Click to expand...

First, is Oletros, you can copy and paste it.

Second, if i ask for a link is because I have read and I know that claim is incorrect.

So, perhaps before bashing me you can investigate a little and see who is right.

The fact is that the trial in Australia hasn't started so nor Samsung nor Apple have established that they are right and so, saying that Apple is not infringing or that Samsung has rights to be paid is totally wrong.



samcraig said:
Question - mostly because I'm too lazy to google it. Was that a SAMSUNG product (the case) or a 3rd party case. Because if it was 3rd party - that's hardly an argument.
Click to expand...

A third party case (but from a company that have links with Samsung) and they didn't even were produced
 
I just hope that this news means that next year I can expect to see even more coverage of the patent lawsuits on the front page of MR. Because two or three posts a week just weren't satisfying me.
 
you're missing the point...

Once again, debate rages about whether Apple or Samsung is "right", or who infringed whom. "It's obvious they copied it." or "The trial hasn't started, wait for the facts." blah blah blah

The companies use these lawsuits as weapons. They see them as calculated gambles. They sometimes know that their case doesn't have merit, but the damage they can do to the other side is often worth the cost. They roll the dice and might win an injunction. Or they use the suit as leverage to negotiate a better licensing deal. Or they use the legal wrangling to delay or otherwise interfere with their competitor's business plans (e.g. impact a product launch).

It doesn't matter who is right or wrong. The one who is right may or may not win the verdict. It doesn't matter. This is just business. Believe me, Apple and Samsung don't get nearly as worked up over this stuff as many on this board. It's just tactics and strategy.

So just chill and let it go. It's really not that interesting.
 
uaecasher said:
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...
Click to expand...

1) The smart cover was not invented by Apple.
2) Samsung makes no smart covers.

Cheers!

----------
slrandall said:
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."
Click to expand...

If there was no justification, the courts would not have let Samsung look at the code to begin with. Clearly, the fact that Apple has paid Qualcomm does not necessarily mean that they do not need also to pay Samsung.
 
vrDrew said:
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.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but not necessarily, as evidenced by the courts decision to grant Samsung access to Apple code. In short, there is the possibility that APPLES implementation, separate from Qualcomms chip, too infringes on the patent. Qualcomms license does only cover the specific product. It does not constitute carte blanche access to the patent by the holder of a licensed product.
 
Kaibelf said:
You really have no idea what this fight is about, do you? It's about FRAND.
Click to expand...

FRAND ip can be "stolen" too.

----------
Kaibelf said:
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.
Click to expand...

See above. If i buy a chip, i buy a chip. I do not buy rights to re-use IP licensed within said chip in whatever implementation i see fit. The original license does not extend beyond the original implementation. Samsung is arguing that Apples use goes beyond that, hence they have a case.
 
Someone really needs to sort out this patents malarkey. The process was never intended for nor adapted for computer software and it's just being abused by companies as a legal weapon. To the outsider it just looks petty and vindictive. The only people who win out of this are the IP lawyers.
 
samcraig said:
Question - mostly because I'm too lazy to google it. Was that a SAMSUNG product (the case) or a 3rd party case. Because if it was 3rd party - that's hardly an argument.
Click to expand...

It was a 3rd party product. In both cases. Neither Apple, nor Samsung are its inventor.
 
Oletros said:
Second, if i ask for a link is because I have read and I know that claim is incorrect.
Click to expand...

If you've read that a claim is incorrect, then kindly do us the courtesy of citing your source for that information before demanding other people do the same.

Patent Exhaustion is Apple's primary defense against most of Samsung's patent suits.

Apple's first defensive position is simply that Samsung is trying to double dip on licensing fees, at Apple's expense. The argument goes something like this: the wireless baseband chips in iPads and iPhones are purchased from companies like Qualcomm and Intel, which already pay Samsung patent licensing fees for those chip components. Under the legal doctrine of patent exhaustion, you only get one bite at the apple, so to speak. Samsung can only demand one payment per use of a patented technology, and Apple says it already got paid by Qualcomm and Intel. As such, Apple's arguing that Samsung's enforceable patent rights relative to those components are now exhausted — all used up.
Click to expand...

Patent Exhaustion, like any legal doctrine, is subject to interpretation and to the particular circumstances of each case. There, was example, a notable case where the original manufacturer of printer ink cartridges sued a "remanufacturer" saying they didn't have the right to re-use empty cartridges. The remanufacturer claimed Patent Exhaustion.

The Qualcomm case is quite different. Qualcomm and Intel's main business is (now) making chips for other companies to use in their products. If Patent Exhaustion didn't apply, from a practical matter what good would those chips do?

Underlying this whole case is the fact that Samsung doesn't really want to license its patents. What Samsung does - and has a history of doing - is using its 3G Patents as a kind of legal "get out of jail free" card. Samsung blatantly copies other company's products, ripping off design and software patents, and then files bogus countersuits like the ones in Australia and Germany.

Repeat after me: Samsung already got paid for its patents by its customer: Qualcomm.
 
Here come the Fandroids, to root for their favorite Korean kitchen appliance/smartphone maker. :rolleyes:
 
BLUELION said:
Just an observation, but Olterous often takes the stand of "show me the link, show me where it says... blah, blah, blah" (sorry if I offend you Olterous) when sharing input in discussions.

I've said this before and I'm gonna say it again. Just because you have not read it, or seen the news segment or are unfamiliar with what many already know, does not not make that collective common knowledge as irrelevant and non-existent Olterous. Obviously we all share a personal perspective, but it is rooted in what we know.

I don't mean to be overtly offensive towards you, but your stance at times is dismissive of the plainly obvious. Just trying to elevate the discussion thats all.
Click to expand...

If it's so obvious, why can you never provide any concrete evidence? You make assertions about court rulings, then ridicule anyone who requests a single citation. That's not how it works.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Piggie said:
uaecasher said:
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...
Click to expand...

Perhaps that says more about you than Samsung! :D
Click to expand...

9/10 of the samsung lawers couldnt tell the galaxy and ipad apart
 
Ciclismo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ok... I get your point, but if you were Samsung... are you saying you'd just "roll over" and let Apple do what they want?

Seems like a silly point to bring up.

w00master
 
That what I love about Samsung they know how to turn the tide and take down Apple. Now who knows Apple may have to bend over and beg Samsung for mercy. Now lets see which side has the best lawyers. :rolleyes:

----------
something3153 said:
If it's so obvious, why can you never provide any concrete evidence? You make assertions about court rulings, then ridicule anyone who requests a single citation. That's not how it works.
Click to expand...

That's how it works at MacRumors anyone can post anything but you can't call them out. :D
 
MultiMediaWill said:
This wouldn't have happened if Apple didn't try to sue the world.
Click to expand...

Normal view of what happened:
1. Samsung copies Apple
2. Apple sues
3. Samsung countersues

Your view on the situation:
1. Apple sues for no reason whatsoever, they're a bully
2. Samsung countersues
 
divinox said:
It was a 3rd party product. In both cases. Neither Apple, nor Samsung are its inventor.
Click to expand...

Please read this.


This is the trademark :

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patent...their-mag-nificent-smart-cover-accessory.html


The magnetic latch is based off this patent :

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patent...ntenna-system-for-the-telephonic-macbook.html

Please read the whole thing before saying "that's about laptops".

And btw.

The cover that "3rd party" was using ? The manufacturer was the son-in-law of the Samsung family.
They like to keep things in the family over at Samsung.
 
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