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

[rockchalk76]

Out of curiosity I clicked the "View all posts by PlipPlop" button. I suggest you all take a look as it as it's a fascinating look into the work of a dedicated troll. About 440 posts total (.95 posts per day) of nothing but trolling.

Let me be clear... I'm all for free speech and expression, and I'm not suggesting he be banned. Criticism and difference of opinion makes this forum better. As long as someone isn't doing something stupid like spamming the word "boooobs" for no apparent reason, I say, let them participate here! I mean look at the insightful comment he made in this thread!

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=11752471&#post11752471


I don't mean to give him a hard time... I'm just suggesting if he took the effort, passion, and dedication he has towards trolling here and applied it to something more productive and positive he could just possibly go on to do something... insanely great!?


..or maybe not!

Excellent news, im sick of Apple stealing ideas from other companies.

 

[divinox]

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!"

1) Since the dawn of time.
2) Patents are not intended to protect ideas, but implementations of said idea.
3) Which is why they are stupid, and not in line with the idea of patents. Patents are there to enable innovation, not inhibit it.
4) To be analogous, the wheel would be an implementation. By comparison, Apple tried to patent geometrical shapes.
5) You're getting things the wrong way around - why would we acknowledge it. Patents work by acknowledgement, not by claim. I could claim the world to be my invention, if people don't acknowledge it little changes. To be acknowledged, a patent must in general be shown to be a) novel b) specific
6) Except, Apple patented electronic communication between two devices, one of which "could be" a cover. There is nothing a) novel or b) specific about that. In fact, to be anything remotely novel it would necessarily have to be specific.
7) First, Apple were hardly the first to have said idea, second, patents are not intended to protect ideas, but implementations thereof.
8) Shape is not part of technical patents.

----------

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 ) :

ImageImage

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.

Yes. Apple was the first to fold a rectangular to create a triangle stand. Oh wait...

Apple was not first to get the generic (unpatentable) idea (folding a rectangular shape into a triangular stand). And they weren't first to have the specific implementation of said idea (three groves). If Samsung stole magnets, Apple stole three groves. Simple as that.

 

[Mad-B-One]

1) Since the dawn of time.
2) Patents are not intended to protect ideas, but implementations of said idea.
3) Which is why they are stupid, and not in line with the idea of patents. Patents are there to enable innovation, not inhibit it.
4) To be analogous, the wheel would be an implementation. By comparison, Apple tried to patent geometrical shapes.
5) You're getting things the wrong way around - why would we acknowledge it. Patents work by acknowledgement, not by claim. I could claim the world to be my invention, if people don't acknowledge it little changes. To be acknowledged, a patent must in general be shown to be a) novel b) specific
6) Except, Apple patented electronic communication between two devices, one of which "could be" a cover. There is nothing a) novel or b) specific about that. In fact, to be anything remotely novel it would necessarily have to be specific.
7) First, Apple were hardly the first to have said idea, second, patents are not intended to protect ideas, but implementations thereof.
8) Shape is not part of technical patents.

----------



Yes. Apple was the first to fold a rectangular to create a triangle stand. Oh wait...

Image


Apple was not first to get the generic (unpatentable) idea (folding a rectangular shape into a triangular stand). And they weren't first to have the specific implementation of said idea (three groves). If Samsung stole magnets, Apple stole three groves. Simple as that.

So, your idea of a pantent is nice in a bubble. Your problem - what you think is stupid is not a concern of courts and patent agencies. So, it does not matter. Granted: Apple might not have been the first to use a particular shape or number of grooves - but that is beside the point: Your argument didn't have anything to do with smart cover's specifically patented properties. You even have an argument shift from "Apple doesn't have that patent" to "Apple stole that shape" and "Samsung could copy it with other sensors" to "Apple shouldn't be able to patent it this way."
Your problem is that the "we" as in society did grant that patent because it is real and published.

Frankly: You are swimming... it doesn't add up.

 

[SandynJosh]

Ah, can you link me the Australian sentence where says that?
Or is only what Apple says and you take it as a fact?

I'd publish it for you but it's in Australian.

------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

I've seen Tim Cook, Apple would be in a world of hurt. Rather then a cage match, it seems Apple and Samsung has chosen to fight it out on a rather large island in the south Pacific using Lawyers as stand-ins. Lawyers are perfect for such a match; there are far too many of them, and no one cares what happens to them.

 

[SandynJosh]

Out of curiosity I clicked the "View all posts by PlipPlop" button. I suggest you all take a look as it as it's a fascinating look into the work of a dedicated troll. About 440 posts total (.95 posts per day) of nothing but trolling.

Let me be clear... I'm all for free speech and expression, and I'm not suggesting he be banned. Criticism and difference of opinion makes this forum better. !

PlipPlop isn't practicing free speech, he's just making childish noise. Fortunately, this site provides a mute button for such foolishness; it's called the ignore button and I use it for several such trolls on this board. Works great!

 

[SiPat]

Apple is looking for alternative suppliers for its products and Samsung stands to lose nearly $8billion worth of Apple business. It somehow needs to make some money off of Apple, so like Nokia, it goes looking for non-standard fees on its FRAND-tied patents.

 

[Oletros]

so like Nokia, it goes looking for non-standard fees on its FRAND-tied patents.

Nokia looked for non standard fees on FRAND patents? Really? I think you have to research better

 

[divinox]

So, your idea of a pantent is nice in a bubble. Your problem - what you think is stupid is not a concern of courts and patent agencies. So, it does not matter. Granted: Apple might not have been the first to use a particular shape or number of grooves - but that is beside the point: Your argument didn't have anything to do with smart cover's specifically patented properties. You even have an argument shift from "Apple doesn't have that patent" to "Apple stole that shape" and "Samsung could copy it with other sensors" to "Apple shouldn't be able to patent it this way."
Your problem is that the [I]"we"[/I] as in society did grant that patent because it is real and published.

Frankly: You are swimming... it doesn't add up.

1) Its not my idea, its the idea of patents.
2) Because Apple was not first? How come the same rules does not apply?
3) Which specifically patented properties are you referring too, and how do they apply in the case of Apple v. Samsung covers?
4) Apple doesn't have a patent on smart cases. It has smart case patents. Vast difference (Cf. Multi-touch, Apple has multi-touch patents, not a patent on multi-touch).
5) Apple "stealing" the shape was an argument made in the original post. Im not shifting anything.
6) If they copied it with sensors, they would not be copying at all. At least not as far as the patent goes. It would be a unique implementation. Patentable, too.
7) My comment on broad patents were additional, non-representative of a shift in position. See point 4.
8) Read up on patent law. Patents under U.S. law are really not considered "valid" (read: tried) until proven in court (****** system, but hey - its the American way).

----------

Apple is looking for alternative suppliers for its products and Samsung stands to lose nearly $8billion worth of Apple business. It somehow needs to make some money off of Apple, so like Nokia, it goes looking for non-standard fees on its FRAND-tied patents.

News flash, samsung are a giant in a sellers market. And no, Apple will need Samsung for the foreseeable future. Didn't they even state so themselves the other week?

p.s. there is no such thing as a standard frand fee. fair != standardized.

 

[LagunaSol]

Out of curiosity I clicked the "View all posts by PlipPlop" button. I suggest you all take a look as it as it's a fascinating look into the work of a dedicated troll. About 440 posts total (.95 posts per day) of nothing but trolling.

He's just one of many on this forum.

PlipPlop isn't practicing free speech, he's just making childish noise. Fortunately, this site provides a mute button for such foolishness; it's called the ignore button and I use it for several such trolls on this board. Works great!

If only more users would take advantage of the Ignore list, we wouldn't have 15 pages of posts where people are merely engaging these pathetic lifeforms in a verbal volley of nothingness.

Sadly, the Ignore function doesn't spare you from seeing the trolls' "commentary" when it's being quoted by a responder.

 

[2IS]

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.

In other words, they're looking more and more like

 

[cirus]

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

I'm sorry, number four sounds like it was posted by a six year old.

 

[VOZZY]

Heres the point

Its interesting that in Australia of all places this case is progressing so quickly. Australian Trade Practices Law has very specific and powerful provisions about "Passing Off."

These provisions protect companies in cases where a third party tries to pass their product as anothers product.

I dont for a split second believe that anyone on this forum would accidentally confuse a Samsung product for an Apple product at the retail level.

But have a quick look at the pdf image below. If you asked your Mum or Grandma to go to the shops and bring back an Iphone or iPad do you think that the products below may be sufficiently similar to confuse them?

Looking at the similarity it seems like some clown at Samsung has told his underlings to copy the Look Feel and Packaging. That kind of similarity is no coincidence.

As for the patents, almost all tech companies violate each other patents. Of course samsung will call Apple on that one...they need a negotiating position!!

 

[RobertMartens]

look like whiny little bitches.

Do you mean to say that Samsung is acting like women?

 

[AidenShaw]

If you asked your Mum or Grandma to go to the shops and bring back an Iphone or iPad do you think that the products below may be sufficiently similar to confuse them?

Not really - if I asked my Mum or Grandma to get me an Ipad they'd bring back a feminine hygiene product.

To be serious, to prove "intentional confusion" you have to assume some bit of experience and knowledge in the purchaser.

If the customer can't distinguish between a sanitary napkin and an internet appliance - you can't make an argument that they can't distinguish between two internet appliances because of deceptive design/marketing.

 

[SandynJosh]

Its interesting that in Australia of all places this case is progressing so quickly. Australian Trade Practices Law has very specific and powerful provisions about "Passing Off."

These provisions protect companies in cases where a third party tries to pass their product as anothers product.

In the U.S. I suppose we call it "trade dress." It's all the things that one company does to be unique in how the customer see s the product. Specifically Apple is accusing Samsung of trade dress violations.

When two companies develop two products for the same market, it's an accident if they share some similarities. However, when one of the companies use the other's product to produce their own, then they will inadvertently copy things that they otherwise would not.

In Samsung's case they ended up using the same screen fonts as Apple, used the same colors in the principle icons, used the same icon layout, and a raft of other things Apple independently developed...right down to how Apple packed their products and designed their package. These things fall under "trade dress," and the number of details copied makes for a very weak case for Samsung.

The only reason I can see for Samsung to continue to try and bluff it out is for some kind of Asian "saving face."

 

[Oletros]

In Samsung's case they ended up using the same screen fonts as Apple, used the same colors in the principle icons, used the same icon layout, and a raft of other things Apple independently developed...right down to how Apple packed their products and designed their package. These things fall under "trade dress," and the number of details copied makes for a very weak case for Samsung.

The only reason I can see for Samsung to continue to try and bluff it out is for some kind of Asian "saving face."

Strange, in the Australian case Apple has sued Samsung about the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and it doesn't have the same fonts, the same color icons or the same icon layout. Well, even in the Galaxy S they don't have the same fonts or grid layout in the home screen. And if you think Apple invented the green color for call icon you're wrong.

Australian case is about multitouch and screen technology patents, not trade dress.

So, what weakens Samsung case? Or is the case that if Apple (or Samsung or Nokia) is proven infringing some patents then loses the right to sue if they think someone is infringing their patents?

 

[divinox]

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

Samsung entered the TV-market like a decade ago - they now dominate it.
Samsung entered the cellphone market like a decade ago - they are now well on their way of dominating it (both in numbers, and in profit share (30% atm or something like that)).

First three links are not so much indicative of Samsung and their success, but rather the shape of an entire industry (an industry in which Samsung is outcompeting basically everyone else - just look at Sony).

Im not particularly big on Samsung, but try to stay factual, shall we.

----------

Its interesting that in Australia of all places this case is progressing so quickly. Australian Trade Practices Law has very specific and powerful provisions about "Passing Off."

These provisions protect companies in cases where a third party tries to pass their product as anothers product.

I dont for a split second believe that anyone on this forum would accidentally confuse a Samsung product for an Apple product at the retail level.

But have a quick look at the pdf image below. If you asked your Mum or Grandma to go to the shops and bring back an Iphone or iPad do you think that the products below may be sufficiently similar to confuse them?

Looking at the similarity it seems like some clown at Samsung has told his underlings to copy the Look Feel and Packaging. That kind of similarity is no coincidence.

As for the patents, almost all tech companies violate each other patents. Of course samsung will call Apple on that one...they need a negotiating position!!

If my mom went to buy an iPad, she would 99.99% bring back an iPad. The other 0.01% of the time she would: a) die b) lose her mind c) play a cruel joke.

People can still read in America, can't they? Hint: If the box says "Galaxy Tab - Samsung" not "iPad - Apple", chances are, its not an iPad.

----------

In the U.S. I suppose we call it "trade dress." It's all the things that one company does to be unique in how the customer see s the product. Specifically Apple is accusing Samsung of trade dress violations.

When two companies develop two products for the same market, it's an accident if they share some similarities. However, when one of the companies use the other's product to produce their own, then they will inadvertently copy things that they otherwise would not.

In Samsung's case they ended up using the same screen fonts as Apple, used the same colors in the principle icons, used the same icon layout, and a raft of other things Apple independently developed...right down to how Apple packed their products and designed their package. These things fall under "trade dress," and the number of details copied makes for a very weak case for Samsung.

The only reason I can see for Samsung to continue to try and bluff it out is for some kind of Asian "saving face."

You know you have the relationship reversed, right? Apple is using Samsung's products to produce their own, not vice versa.

 

[TheMacBookPro]

Image

That was made by a third party company, was never licensed by Samsung, and was eventually canceled.

If Apple did really infringe on the patents that Samsung claim they did then by all means go ahead and sue Apple. No idea why some people on here seem to think that they know all the nuances of all the Apple v Samsung (v Apple) cases and are professional lawyers...

 

[divinox]

That was made by a third party company, was never licensed by Samsung, and was eventually canceled.

If Apple did really infringe on the patents that Samsung claim they did then by all means go ahead and sue Apple. No idea why some people on here seem to think that they know all the nuances of all the Apple v Samsung (v Apple) cases and are professional lawyers...

And, for all we know, did not infringe on any Apple patent. Perhaps they stole "magnets", but if so, Apple stole "groves". Ergo: Either both are culprits, or none are.

(Totally ignoring the fact that Samsung is not the manufacturer to begin with.)

 

[stevensr123]

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...

1st off, that "smart cover" is made by a 3rd party seller, and your other comments say more about you ,than samsung.

Unless you think apple were the 1st to use black bezels, that i fail to see how on earth someone can mistake this:

For an ipad. You see that software? looks totally different, you see that writing on the back? it says samsung, intact the hole back looks completely different.

Unless people think it's fair for a company to have 1st dibs on the screen size or black bezel, then i fail to see why the samsung galaxy was banned.

 

[unlinked]

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.

Maybe you are right but woudnt the case already be over if that was true? I do remember exactly the same claims being made about the Nokia case and Apple ended up paying Nokia.

 

[PlipPlop]

Im hoping that iphones are banned in the UK soon , the queues of people returning broken ones spilling out of shops is becoming annoying.

 

[iBug2]

Samsungs market cap is 110bil. Apple has 85bil cash. In a year or two, Apple might as well just buy Samsung.

 

[shigzeo]

Samsung everything

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

----------



Do you have any idea of everything that Samsung makes?

Indeed, Samsung make everything. In Korea, they run grocery, car companies, apartments, life insurance, music businesses, etc. etc., either directly or through sister companies.

They don't only make your fridge, they make the bricks for your apartment complex and collect double insurance from you for life insurance because they are 'trustworthy'.

This bitty electronics stuff isn't their most profitable business they do, nor is it the largest. They happen to do electronics and people in north america and Europe think its all they do. It isn't. Apple are wrestling with a supplier that supply everything from mortar and fabrication devices to grocery lines.

They know how to fight and know how to go the long route. Who else can get a CEO back after being deposed for tax fraud? Samsung, that is who.

 

[Oletros]

Samsungs market cap is 110bil. Apple has 85bil cash. In a year or two, Apple might as well just buy Samsung.

Really? Another time the nonsense about Apple buying Samsung or Samsung buying Apple?