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

[Oletros]

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.

Oh, no, the fact that Apple is using exhaustion is not the wrong claim, the wrong claim is stating as a fact that Apple is right as it would be stating as a fact that Samsung is right.

Perhaps you're an Australian IP lawyer and you have evidence that Judge Bennet will rule against Samsung. If so, tell me how do you know it.

Repeat after me: Apple and I think that Samsung already got paid for its patents by its customer: Qualcomm but Samsung doesn't think so and therefore Samsung has sued Apple in Australia

Corrected, you're welcome

 

[lilo777]

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...

Dumb comment. Obviously a lie. Firstly, Samsung does not produce any "smart covers" so they could not possibly "copy" it. Secondly, someone posting on MacRumors forum sure should be able to recognize a totally different screen aspect ratio.

 

[miggitymac]

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.

I'm confused. Trademark =/= patent. Completely different, in fact. So what point are you making by comparing the two?

 

[Peace]

I'm confused. Trademark =/= patent. Completely different, in fact. So what point are you making by comparing the two?

The first is merely the trademark.
The second is the magnetic latch that is used for the smart cover and is patented by Apple.

Here's some more :

http://www.tuaw.com/2010/04/13/apple-patents-smart-covers-for-devices/

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patent...smart-device-covers-are-a-paradigm-shift.html

 

[wol]

Here is why:

My guess:

SAMSUNG's profit margins (LCD screens, memory, ...) are dropping rapidly. Management figured out that the only way SAMSUNG as a whole can survive the next couple of years is by collecting substantial licensing fees from their competitors. This it is kind of a desperate move - trying to sue the hell out of one of your best (former) customers.

Note that the "finance the company by licensing fees" sort of worked for NOKIA, though at some point in the near future they need to get their phone business to become profitable, or else...

 

[something3153]

That's how it works at MacRumors anyone can post anything but you can't call them out.

And indeed, you get downvoted for asking for some kind of evidence.

----------

My guess:

SAMSUNG's profit margins (LCD screens, memory, ...) are dropping rapidly. Management figured out that the only way SAMSUNG as a whole can survive the next couple of years is by collecting substantial licensing fees from their competitors. This it is kind of a desperate move - trying to sue the hell out of one of your best (former) customers.

Note that the "finance the company by licensing fees" sort of worked for NOKIA, though at some point in the near future they need to get their phone business to become profitable, or else...

Do you have any idea of everything that Samsung makes?

 

[Oletros]

Management figured out that the only way SAMSUNG as a whole can survive the next couple of years

What? Are you kidding?

 

[Peace]

And indeed, you get downvoted for asking for some kind of evidence.

----------



Do you have any idea of everything that Samsung makes?

I know they make a few knockoffs of Apple products.

 

[miggitymac]

The first is merely the trademark.
The second is the magnetic latch that is used for the smart cover and is patented by Apple.

Here's some more :

http://www.tuaw.com/2010/04/13/apple-patents-smart-covers-for-devices/

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patent...smart-device-covers-are-a-paradigm-shift.html

I still don't get it.

One is a trademark is for the term "smart cover" as an electronics accessory. It has nothing to do with patents...the article references the antenna system and possible solar technology later on, but that still has nothing to do with patents. And it has nothing to do with Samsung.

The second link takes me the patents for antenna to possibly make a "telephonic macbook". Ok?

Sorry...I still don't see what point you're making.

Edit: just saw the new links you posted. So, are you saying that Samsung infringed Apple's patents for smart covers? If that's the case, why not just say it????? Also, just because the covers look like Apple's doesn't mean anything. Apple's patent has to do with electrical elements and active components that are in the cover, not the design of the cover.

 

[wol]

And indeed, you get downvoted for asking for some kind of evidence.

----------



Do you have any idea of everything that Samsung makes?

Yes, to name just a few:
Samsung cuts jobs in loss-making LCD business: http://www.vir.com.vn/news/business/corporate/samsung-cuts-jobs-in-loss-making-lcd-business.html

Samsung profit slides on slacking TV sales: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2011-10-28/samsung-earnings/50975698/1

Samsung's profits down 23% due to fall in chip prices: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15488328

Samsung profit structure began to change: the cellular phone heavy chip business light: http://www.newso.org/ITNews/Trade/Samsung-profit-structure-began-to-change-the-cellular-phone-heavy-chip-business-light/d1c000a6-b525-411d-9101-61f401d26e76

 

[Thunderhawks]

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.

Amen! And yes, wake us up when these big corporations are done dividing up the money (that's what it's all about anyway) and we do not get a cent of what they are dividing up!

Why would anyone even care?

My Apple stuff works without the lawsuits and my Samsung stuff works too.

 

[Oletros]

Yes, to name just a few:
Samsung cuts jobs in loss-making LCD business: http://www.vir.com.vn/news/business/corporate/samsung-cuts-jobs-in-loss-making-lcd-business.html

Samsung profit slides on slacking TV sales: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2011-10-28/samsung-earnings/50975698/1

Samsung's profits down 23% due to fall in chip prices: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15488328

Samsung profit structure began to change: the cellular phone heavy chip business light: http://www.newso.org/ITNews/Trade/Samsung-profit-structure-began-to-change-the-cellular-phone-heavy-chip-business-light/d1c000a6-b525-411d-9101-61f401d26e76

Have you seen that your fourth link contradicts your guess? And the others only talk about short term low prices?

 

[divinox]

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.



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.

Repeat after me: Not necessarily.

----------

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.

1) The smart cover was in essence there before Apple "invented it"
2) Son-in-law, or not. It was not made by Samsung. Guilt-by-association is never pretty. What if your son-in-law turns out to be the next Hitler. Should we shoot you too in the process, just because? After all... nazis like to keep things in the family.

(YAY! HITLER REFERENCE, I WIN!)

p.s. Unless Apple claims to have a patent on magnetic force, i fail to see the relevance of the second link.

 

[iBug2]

I think you meant 'clearing it up'.
'Clearing it out' implies intestinal activity. Wait a minute... maybe you were right the first time.

I stand corrected. My english is fairly good but still not my native language.

 

[ThanksSteve]

What a waste of legal fees. Just donate the money to charity.

When was the last time a company actually won one of these cases in the tech field? Ask Apple, they've been ripped off for decades.

 

[iBug2]

What a waste of legal fees. Just donate the money to charity.

When was the last time a company actually won one of these cases in the tech field? Ask Apple, they've been ripped off for decades.

It happens actually, Apple dropped the lawsuit against Microsoft and made a deal with them for the future. Otherwise Microsoft was gonna pay couple billions back then.

 

[spazzcat]

Repeat after me: Not necessarily.

----------



1) The smart cover was in essence there before Apple "invented it"
2) Son-in-law, or not. It was not made by Samsung. Guilt-by-association is never pretty. What if your son-in-law turns out to be the next Hitler. Should we shoot you too in the process, just because? After all... nazis like to keep things in the family.
Image



(YAY! HITLER REFERENCE, I WIN!)

p.s. Unless Apple claims to have a patent on magnetic force, i fail to see the relevance of the second link.

Only part of these two that is the same is they fold.

 

[Mad-B-One]

1) The smart cover was not invented by Apple.

Wrong:

This is the smartcover patent - by Apple!

1) The smart cover was in essence there before Apple "invented it"

If that is true, put a date on your picture and show me the functions it has. Being partially foldable does not make it a smart cover. That has to do with sensors knowing the coverage of the screen in real life. As you show an iPad cover preceding iPad 2, it is basically impossible that the iPad 1 has that sensor set and therefore you prove: Nothing!

 

[iEvolution]

Normal view of what happened:
1. Samsung has similar design to Apple
2. Apple sues for shape infringement
3. Samsung countersues

Your view on the situation:
1. Apple sues for no reason whatsoever, they're a bully
2. Samsung countersues

Fixed. All these lawsuits were just dumb to begin with its not like the Galaxy was becoming a ground breaking product anyway. I found it funny that Apple really felt that threatened by the Galaxy to have to sue.

Samsung may not be innovative by any means but the behavior by Apple is also one of anti-competition. Apple fans shouldn't be cheering for this stuff, its just a way for Apple to kill out some of the competition and stagnate their products like they've done with the iPod line.

 

[divinox]

Only part of these two that is the same is they fold.

So Apple can take "the way it folds" but no one else can take "magnets" - because the latter is Apples "invention". Correct?

----------

Wrong:

This is the smartcover patent - by Apple!



If that is true, put a date on your picture and show me the functions it has. Being partially foldable does not make it a smart cover. That has to do with sensors knowing the coverage of the screen in real life. As you show an iPad cover preceding iPad 2, it is basically impossible that the iPad 1 has that sensor set and therefore you prove: Nothing!

Samsung could implement the "smarts" differently (e.g. light, or proximity sensor), and people would still call foul - based on appearance alone. Also, see above.

 

[Mad-B-One]

Samsung could implement the "smarts" differently (e.g. light, or proximity sensor), and people would still call foul - based on appearance alone. Also, see above.

Nevertheless, your claim that the smart cover is not an patent is wrong and shows your level of compentence in that matter. Nuffsaid.

Oh, and by the way: No, they can't. The panent is a little bit more exhausting then using magnets. Don't be lazy - follow the link and read instead of writing something lukewarm.

 

[vitzr]

This wouldn't have happened if Apple didn't try to sue the world.

I concur.

Sadly as he aged, Steve Jobs became bitter and extremely aggressive. As his star rose, he morphed into just another money hungry, power drunk, egomaniac CEO. He was determined to compete in the courtroom where the advantage of Apple's very deep pockets will buy a win. Along the way, Steve became the person he detested and mocked as a younger, more energetic, and openminded person.

At the beginning of the "Think Different" marketing campaign Steve was indeed a cool guy with a smile, a brilliant mind, and a remarkable aura around him. He welcomed ideas and operated with a certain flourish.

That's the Steve Jobs I choose to remember fondly. The "Apple Computer Steve Jobs".

 

[divinox]

Nevertheless, your claim that the smart cover is not an patent is wrong and shows your level of compentence in that matter. Nuffsaid.

Oh, and by the way: No, they can't. The panent is a little bit more exhausting then using magnets. Don't be lazy - follow the link and read instead of writing something lukewarm.

My suggested implementation would as far as i can tell not infringe on the patent, as it would not rely on an electrical component within the cover augmenting the capabilities of the device. Nor does it change the fact that Apples smart cover lends heavily on covers made by others prior to its release. If, then, we are to assume that Samsungs version does not use electrical components within the cover itself, there is really not much of a case.

That said, the patent in itself appears to be absurdly broad. Patents should protect specific implementations, not overly broad ones. Then again, I'm reading someones interpretation of it, rather than the actual filing. And, as far as i know, the patent in question have not been tried in court.

p.s., such an implementation would make the cover dumb, per se, but the achieved result would be the same. The device would go into sleep when "covered".

 

[Mad-B-One]

That said, the patent in itself appears to be absurdly broad. Patents should protect specific implementations, not overly broad ones. Then again, I'm reading someones interpretation of it, rather than the actual filing. And, as far as i know, the patent in question have not been tried in court.

Since when should patents be specific? You have a great idea and you want to have a patent for it and - yes - you want to have the coverage as broad as possible. If I would have invented the wheel (before someone argues - I didn't), I want all implementations covered: From gears in watches using the properties of a wheel to the horsewagon around the corner. Why whould I limit it? Same for the smart cover: A cover that communicates with the device and/or gives input to interact with software (like wake up, or like Apps implementing peeks) is as broad as you can make it because you had the idea to interact with a cover. You don't want to have someone coming with "But my smartcover has cut-off instead of round corners and therefore it does everything yours does but it's not your patented cover!"


Oh - and your cover picture has one more groove than this one (original ) :

The iPad 2 smart cover has 3 groves and locks magnetically instead of just sticking in the corner. That is indeed different. It looks more similar in your picture but it is actually closer to this picture of the Apple iPad 1 cover which can also use the iPad tilted just by locking into the back of the cover. So, you kinda show the oposite of what you wanted to: Apple was first again and someone copied.

 

[*LTD*]

Cool!

Chest thumping by Samsung! We know where that usually gets them, right guys?