or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Samsung planning legal offensive against Apple's unreleased iPhone 5
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung planning legal offensive against Apple's unreleased iPhone 5 - Page 4

post #121 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

It Europe the 1-Click patent wasn't upheld. It failed the obviousness test.

Good. There are clearly stupid examples of software patents. That doesn't mean that valid examples cannot exist.
post #122 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Samsung is a large a diverse company, with enough experience to recognize that the margins on parts are much lower than the margins on finished products.

Really? Have you compared Intel's margins to Dell's?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #123 of 155
Apple should sue for 100% ownership of Samsung corporation effective immediately.
post #124 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

The article pretty much answers any doubts about these if/then premises:

----
Samsung has alreadyplanned out an aggressive legal strategy to block sales of Apple's unannounced iPhone 5 when it arrives in Korea, a new report claims.

Insiders at the South Korean electronics giant indicated to the Korea Times that the company plans to immediately take its legal battle to the next generation of productswhen Apple attempts to release the iPhone 5 in Korea.

"Justafter the arrival of the iPhone 5 here, Samsung plans to take Apple to court here for its violation of Samsungs wireless technology related patents," said an anonymous Samsung senior executive.

"For as long as Apple does not drop mobile telecommunications functions, it would be impossible for it to sell its i-branded products without using our patents. We will stick to a strong stance against Apple during the lingering legal fights," he added.

I don't think it provides any answers. It's a rumor attributed to an anonymous source. Any, all or none of it could be true.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #125 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmmx View Post

You miss the point. Samsung is infringing on Apple's IP. Apple puts effort into innovating, then others copy it lock stock and barrel. That simply is not fair.

If you had invented something and others ripped you off, you would be upset as well.

That's a laugh, Apple has been in the mobile business for 5 minutes, they do not belong to any the main mobile standards bodies, don't get involved in standards development and the main way they get patents is to buy them.

Companies like Samsung, Nokia, Microsoft, Panasonic etc., etc., have been beavering away for years on the standards development. Nokia has been working on the GSM standards since the mid eighties.

When apple can come up with a patent on something that really makes a difference to wireless technology then they have a case, at present they are only worried about people making their devices look similar.
post #126 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by moustache View Post

Has Samsung been thinking of their own image and customer base in Korea?

If Samsung do somehow (miraculously) win this fight to block iPhone 5, will this indirectly piss off Korean Apple fans who might also buy Samsung products?

I can understand Apples case of an obvious rip off from Samsung of the iPhone and iPad but would it work to Samsungs advantage and branding if they block the iPhone5? Be careful Samsung, your pride is getting in the way of your business sense.

Is Apple thinking of Samsung fans..?

Anyway... I think major thing Samsung wants to achieve here is not to block Apple permanently, but to settle down a deal with Apple where both can sell their gadgets without legal obstructions.
post #127 of 155
deleted
post #128 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

No, and I didn't compare Hasbro to plastic manufacturers either.

You made a flat statement:
"the margins on parts are much lower than the margins on finished products."

That is clearly false.

Then, to support it, you cited PROFIT figures rather than margins. Furthermore, not a single thing you cited actually compared finished device margins to component margins. So you doubled down on your error - and blew it again.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #129 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach View Post

맞고 한 하자는거서 어야지 왜?
유럽에? 국에서 개드.국에서 이야- 뭐,소송걸!! 고 한 하자,부는,서 까부? 야 이거? 유럽가, 한국에는,거야? 는,서 까부?
왜 서 빰,지 왜지 왜;개드!! 립, 걸!! 고 한 !! ? 야 이거? ;p

Very mature....

Btw, these grammars are absolutely terrible. Both of you need to go back to school and learn some Korean...
post #130 of 155
deleted
post #131 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

Apple doesn't use any Samsung semi-conductors, except for the RAM and flash chips, which they could get from other sources (Elpida, Micron both make LPDDR2 and flash memory, for example). Samsung fabs the Apple SoC's, but it's almost a public secret that from the A6 onwards, TSMC will produce them (no reason why they couldn't do it, they basically have the exact same equipment as Samsung, I know this because I work for the supplier of said equipment). The radio IC's are from Infineon and Qualcomm. The screens Apple already gets from LG, Wintek and I think a third supplier. The battery is custom, don't know where they are produced but definitely not Samsung. The cameras are from OmniVision, for the iPhone 5 some people are speculating it will have a Sony cam. The gyroscope/accelerometer are from STMicro. The case is not made by Samsung, and the iPhones are assembled by Foxconn and Pegatron.

Did I miss any parts?

Fantastic post.
post #132 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

No, and I didn't compare Hasbro to plastic manufacturers either.

Instead, I wrote only about Samsung's diverse operations, where we find:


http://hotcellularphone.com/samsung/...hones-tablets/



http://articles.economictimes.indiat...ng-smartphones



http://www.mobile-ent.biz/news/read/...profits/015046


Not surprising, given that AI reports Apple unilaterally demanding discounts from already-strapped vendors.

After all, Samsung makes more than a fourth of the iPhone 4's components.

Being parts boy just isn't what it used to be.

What that infographic isn't telling it's ignorant audience is that Samsung is one of the suppliers of all those parts but the SoC for the current A based processors.

The big loss will come when Samsung gets dumped for the SoC.

ARM has become certified with Global Foundries and I wouldn't put it past Apple to use the new state of the art plant going online in upstate New York to be one of those upcoming SoC manufacturers for it's embedded systems.

What would be ironic is this bit of news from Global Foundries: http://www.asminternational.org/port...00621e010aRCRD

Quote:
Global Foundries, Milpitas, California, and Samsung Electronics, Japan, announce plans to synchronize global semiconductor fabrication facilities to produce chips based on a new high-performance and low-leakage 28nm High-K Metal Gate technology. The technology has been specifically developed for mobile device applications, offering 60% of active power reduction at the same frequency or 55% performance boost at the same leakage over 45nm low power SoC designs.

In 2010, Global Foundries and Samsung announced a fab synchronization on low-power 28nm HKMG technology in collaboration with IBM and STMicroelectronics. This low-power technology is qualified and fully design enabled with standard cell libraries, memory compilers, and additional complex IP blocks. The high-performance offering complements the low-power technology, extending the frequency of operation for high-performance smartphones, tablets, and notebook computers, while retaining ultra-low leakage transistors and memories to enable the long battery life needed for mobile environments.

The companies are proving the collaborative value of a synchronized platform by working with several customers to optimize processes and tooling for both the low-power and high-performance 28nm HKMG technologies. The synchronization process helps ensure consistent production worldwide, enabling customer chip designs to be produced at multiple sources with no redesign required, leveraging the customers' design investments.

By virtue of the synchronization, the collaboration presents a "virtual fab" that derives manufacturing capacity from four geographically diverse fabs. Each company has two 300mm fabs that will qualify the technology: Global Foundries Fab 1 in Dresden, Germany and Fab 8 in Saratoga County, New York; and Samsung S1 in Giheung, Korea and the company's recently expanded Fab S2 in Austin, Texas.

The four fabs represent a global footprint estimated to be the largest in the foundry industry for leading-edge capacity, offering customer choice enabled by close collaboration and an unparalleled de-risking of supply chain uncertainties.

What a great way to stiff one and open the other with welcome arms.
post #133 of 155
deleted
post #134 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

Samsung needs to do something, ANYTHING, to keep from getting crushed. Even if it's wildly irrational. It just might fool some of their shareholders and keep their top management in place.

It'll be funny to see them get smacked down again. If Samsung really wants to sue Apple over basic wireless technology, they'll need to sue every other handset manufacturer that uses that technology. Basic technology patents are encumbered by "fair use" clauses. They're designed to prevent patent-holders from choosing who gets to use their patents and who doesn't.


Who knows? Maybe they'll start citing Star Trek and Star Wars as prior art. They've already tried using other sci-fi movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey

Maybe they want to push legal system into declaring rectangular square a basic IT technology..?
post #135 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Sorry to disappoint, but unlike many here I don't pretend to be the judge deciding over this case, and will instead wait to see what comes out of the court.

The thing is, you strongly implied that you did know better when you said that I was wrong about using an NDA like this, and when you indicated that you had extensive experience with them. Then, when I believed you and asked if you had ever seen this happen, you went all evasive with the "who knows what the judge will say" line. Not cool.
post #136 of 155
deleted
post #137 of 155
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #138 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Actually, you expressed a surprising certainty that somehow counsel was not allowed to have access to any operational info. I questioned that. It's your assertion, not mine: do you actually believe counsel is forbidden to have access to operational info, and if so what are you basing it on?

Now you are simply misquoting me, so this exchange has probably become pointless. But I'll give it one more go in case we are really just miscommunicating.

I never said anything about counsel not being allowed access to information - that was clear and you appear to be deflecting. I did say that the NDAs that I have experience of, which may not be typical, would be breached by trying to use them to start a legal case. I further made the simple observation that having counsel check out an NDA prior to signing is different from giving counsel the confidential information that it covers for the purpose of starting an action. But, I conceded that you may know better in the commercial realm, and I asked whether that had, in fact, happened in your experience. That is potentially really pertinent to this situation. For whatever reason, you continue to decline to answer that question.
post #139 of 155
deleted
post #140 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

In the Ford/GM example, neither of these two companies introduced, invented or popularized the mid-size family saloon, or added anything substantial to mid-size family saloons that didn't already exist. They were both already in the business of making cars, there has always been a demand for mid-size saloons, so they both came up with a car that fit that segment, and apparently one of them ripped off the others design.

Ford did invent method of cars mass production. I don't think they could have patented that, otherwise for couple of decades everyone else would have to settle down for hand-made low volume super-cars.

Quote:
With the iPad and iPhone, Apple launched products that were a complete departure from everything that came before it, taking a few very bold decisions that many, many people have laughed at and ridiculed, but eventually turned out to be the big selling points of iOS devices. Apple took all these design and product decisions on their own accord, they developed their own software, and basically innovated almost everything about iOS devices themselves (note: 'innovate' is not the same as 'invent'). Seeing the succes of iOS devices, Samsung simply decided to imitate everything about them, going after the exact same customers using the exact same hardware running software that looks almost exactly the same (touchwiz, kies), advertising it as direct competitor to iOS products (except 'better'), and so on.

I don't really agree with you here. I still think that, from GUI point of view, my iPhone is not that much different from my old Palm Tungsten; matrix of icons on colour touch screen. And there was Palm Desktop software for syncing addresses, calendar, ToDo... and transferring media between PC and PDA.

Apple refined all that nicely with iOS and (to lesser degree, arguably) iTunes, but I personnally don't see that as new invention.

Quote:
I think this whole Apple vs Samsung war is about all of this, not just about how much the iPad looks like a Galaxy Tab. If that were true, Apple would be suing the manufacturers of about every tablet on the market, because they all look the same. They sued Samsung, because Samsung is trying to get a free ride on Apples success using products that you could almost call KIRFs with a big-brand name on them.

That is fine, except that German court didn't remark on packing and advertising and... but on basic minimalistic design of a product. The thing for me here is, tablets are designed around software they run on, and if software is designed for touch screen display, it is really nonsense to put buttons on device just to differentiate it, even if Android hasn't got need for such buttons. In case of tablets, buttons are of soft type (rather than physical) and Android 3.x does have different screen layout from iOS, thus it does differ when it comes to buttons as well.

I can see reason for Apple's complains re Samsung phones and their GUI overlay that does look like iOS, but tablet related Android is a different beast than iOS, for better or worse, and I cannot support Apple's claims on that behalf. Anyone holding (switched on) iPad and Android tablet for at least 30 seconds could never really confuse them.
post #141 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

You're correct: this began with my post #103, replying to AnOldAplGuy. He left the thread shortly after you picked it up. My last comment should have been directed at him.

Whether the launching of this case constitutes a breach of NDA is something the judge will have to decide, as a breach may likely have been avoided if the filings did not disclose specifics of unreleased products. I haven't seen either the NDA or the court filings in question so I'm not in a position to say, but since the case includes released products and has not been summarily dismissed by virtue of its being a breach, I'm inclined to let the court do its work and see how it lands.

So to be as clear as I can here to avoid further misunderstanding, I have no opinion about whether the filing of the case necessarily constitutes a breach. In contrast, AnOldAplGuy wrote with great certainty that it was, and my aim here is only to suggest that such certainty is misplaced given the very sparse reporting in the article we're discussing.

OK thanks for clarifying. I'm still curious to know if you (or anyone else) knows of an example of where an NDA was used to build a case against the other party. I'm not looking for an opinion on the merits of this particular case - I agree that we don't know enough to make that useful.
post #142 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Baloney.

First, Samsung can not simply stop shipping products to Apple without violating their supply agreements - and losing billions of dollars in damages.

Second, there's not a single thing in the iPhone or iPad that Apple can't get from someone else. In fact, the majority of items already have second source suppliers.

So Apple is inconvenienced for a while - and collects billions of dollars from Samsung for breaking their contracts while Samsung loses $7 B a year in revenues.

Somehow, I don't think that's what Samsung wants.

Unless their contract is expiring and is due for renewal shortly.

Someone around here mentioned that Apple purchases contribute to 2% of Samsung sales, which - if true - is not something Samsung could not assimilate. I would expect Apple contributes more to Samsung's well-being, though, when you thing of it, Apple sells their products with decent premium but they do not necessarily pay premium for Samsung bits; in fact, they probably get better pricing than army of smaller buyers.
post #143 of 155
At this point, the iPhone 5 is nothing more than vaporware. So what is Samsung doing planning a legal offensive against a piece of vaporware?

Unless, Samsung knows something that we don't. Better yet, what if Samsung's phone bosses know something that they aren't supposed to know?

Samsung's component and phone businesses are separate units. Apple makes the components business sign an NDA. Again, how can Samsung plan a legal offensive against a product that doesn't exist? If it comes out that the components unit violated the NDA, that's not good for them. Even if Apple doesn't sue, competitors like HTC may choose to go elsewhere if it becomes evident that Samsung will gain an advantage from being their component supplier.
post #144 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

I kind of understand what you are coming from, but I think GM and Ford mimicking each others models is not the same thing as Samsung copying Apple products. Nobody honestly thinks that only Apple should have a monopoly on rectangular devices with a glass screen and a button on the front, just like no-one honestly thinks only Ford can make a box on wheels.

The Apple vs. Samsung case is not just about how the Galaxy tabs/phones look so much like iPad and the iPhone, it's about what is usually called the 'trade dress' that Samsung is copying from Apple. This includes the hardware itself, the software (up to the iTunes clone that Samsung made), the feature set, the packaging, which consumers the products are targeted at, the way they are marketed, basically every aspect of the product that is supposed make people want to buy it. Samsung is trying to copy everything about the iPad and iPhone, trying to lure the exact same customers as Apple is targeting with the iPad.

In the Ford/GM example, neither of these two companies introduced, invented or popularized the mid-size family saloon, or added anything substantial to mid-size family saloons that didn't already exist. They were both already in the business of making cars, there has always been a demand for mid-size saloons, so they both came up with a car that fit that segment, and apparently one of them ripped off the others design.

With the iPad and iPhone, Apple launched products that were a complete departure from everything that came before it, taking a few very bold decisions that many, many people have laughed at and ridiculed, but eventually turned out to be the big selling points of iOS devices. Apple took all these design and product decisions on their own accord, they developed their own software, and basically innovated almost everything about iOS devices themselves (note: 'innovate' is not the same as 'invent'). Seeing the succes of iOS devices, Samsung simply decided to imitate everything about them, going after the exact same customers using the exact same hardware running software that looks almost exactly the same (touchwiz, kies), advertising it as direct competitor to iOS products (except 'better'), and so on.

I think this whole Apple vs Samsung war is about all of this, not just about how much the iPad looks like a Galaxy Tab. If that were true, Apple would be suing the manufacturers of about every tablet on the market, because they all look the same. They sued Samsung, because Samsung is trying to get a free ride on Apples success using products that you could almost call KIRFs with a big-brand name on them.

Well stated. It really makes the point.
post #145 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

I don't really agree with you here. I still think that, from GUI point of view, my iPhone is not that much different from my old Palm Tungsten; matrix of icons on colour touch screen. And there was Palm Desktop software for syncing addresses, calendar, ToDo... and transferring media between PC and PDA.

Apple refined all that nicely with iOS and (to lesser degree, arguably) iTunes, but I personnally don't see that as new invention.

The guy didn't say anything about Apple inventing anything. He said Apple INNOVATED! Just wanted to point that out. In fact the guy made it a point to differentiate the two words invented and innovated. \ So why are you still in disagreement with his point?
post #146 of 155
deleted
post #147 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Perhaps I misread, but I don't believe it's the NDA itself that contains the info on Apple products Samsung alleges are patent infringement. It would seem highly irregular for an NDA to include such specific product info; normally an NDA would merely govern the disclosure of info in other documents.

The original assertion from AnOldAplGuy was not that the NDA itself was submitted as evidence, but that the NDA should prevent the sharing of info from other documents as part of a court filing, since court filings are usually a matter of public record.

However, this view is predicated on a misreading of both the headline and the body of the article, which clearly note that Samsung is merely "planning" to file infringement claims after public release of the product, not that they had done so already.

While the iPhone 5 was mentioned as one of several products allegedly infringing on Samsung patents, the actual source article notes:


It may well be that any current filings by Samsung against Apple include only released products, and filings against the iPhone 5 will only come after public disclosure of the product, completely obviating AnOldAplGuy's suggestion.

That would make much more sense. I think the OP was really just noting, as others have done, that is rather odd to announce that you intend to commence proceedings for patent violations after the launch of a future product that you either know nothing about, or only know about via information covered by an NDA. On the other hand it was an unattributed source, so who knows what is really planned.
post #148 of 155
deleted
post #149 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

That would make much more sense. I think the OP was really just noting, as others have done, that is rather odd to announce that you intend to commence proceedings for patent violations after the launch of a future product that you either know nothing about, or only know about via information covered by an NDA. On the other hand it was an unattributed source, so who knows what is really planned.

Samsung is claiming on a patent for all the underlying wireless technology. They don't seem to care what features are actually in the iPhone 5, because their alleged condition for avoiding the suit is that Apple remove all mobile communications capability.

The mere fact that the iPhone exists at all is apparently why they're suing. What I don't know is why they haven't already sued for the first four generations of iPhone.

And it's still a frivolous suit, unless they want to now allege that companies making chips under license are not allow to sell them to Samsung's competitors. I'd love to see them try and make that claim.
post #150 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamino View Post

Samsung is claiming on a patent for all the underlying wireless technology. They don't seem to care what features are actually in the iPhone 5, because their alleged condition for avoiding the suit is that Apple remove all mobile communications capability.

The mere fact that the iPhone exists at all is apparently why they're suing. What I don't know is why they haven't already sued for the first four generations of iPhone.

And it's still a frivolous suit, unless they want to now allege that companies making chips under license are not allow to sell them to Samsung's competitors. I'd love to see them try and make that claim.

Agreed, and also one might think that it would considerably weaken their case that they have waited so long to sue, if they now intend to argue that all the iPhones have infringed.
post #151 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranReloaded View Post

Kimchi is a dish best served cold...

Quote:
Originally Posted by shamino View Post

Samsung is claiming on a patent for all the underlying wireless technology. They don't seem to care what features are actually in the iPhone 5, because their alleged condition for avoiding the suit is that Apple remove all mobile communications capability.

The mere fact that the iPhone exists at all is apparently why they're suing. What I don't know is why they haven't already sued for the first four generations of iPhone.

And it's still a frivolous suit, unless they want to now allege that companies making chips under license are not allow to sell them to Samsung's competitors. I'd love to see them try and make that claim.

Cost benefit relationship.

Apple sees Samsung now as a threat and are taking legal actions against them.

Samsung, is like fine then, I had all these pent up disappointment built up so I'll use them now. A hidden card of sort.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #152 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline View Post

If I were Apple, I simply wouldn't even bother to launch in Korea. They have plenty of other markets who want their products. I feel bad for all the Koreans who want an iPhone 5, but if your corporations are going to act childish...

I don't think Koreans would agree with your implication that Samsung is "their" corporation. Do Americans think Berkshire Hathaway is their corporation?
post #153 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranReloaded View Post

Kinda reminds me of the Soccer World Cup that was co-hosted there... There was this allegedly rigged match...

Yeah, I know which match you're talking about. But if you go back and rewatch the game, you'll see that the opposing team blew away a lot of easy chances. I mean instances when it was just the striker VS the S. Korean goalie and no defender in sight. Oh, the goalkeeper didn't even have to break into a sweat because the ball sailed over the goal post in one case.
post #154 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamino View Post

Samsung is claiming on a patent for all the underlying wireless technology. They don't seem to care what features are actually in the iPhone 5, because their alleged condition for avoiding the suit is that Apple remove all mobile communications capability.

The mere fact that the iPhone exists at all is apparently why they're suing. What I don't know is why they haven't already sued for the first four generations of iPhone.

And it's still a frivolous suit, unless they want to now allege that companies making chips under license are not allow to sell them to Samsung's competitors. I'd love to see them try and make that claim.

Actually Samsung isn't currently making any "underlying wireless" claims against the iPhone. The entire article is based on the reporting of a rumor, no matter that the headline would imply that it's a fact. It's posted just to get Apple-nation riled up and in battle-mode IMHO. Rally the troops and all that.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #155 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

Now, this nonsense about people being confused really is being taken to the extreme. No one is going to confuse a Samsung tablet with an Apple iPad. The branding alone makes it very clear what the devices are and who makes them. This applies to phones as well.

Talk to people who sell these phones. I did this over the weekend after reading an article last week. The customers are not THAT stupid. They know what an iPhone and iPad is and they know the difference between Apple products and Samsung products.

The time and money wasted on this superfluous nonsense is getting in the way of actually producing products.

I agree. I tinkered with my brother-in-law's Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 (the one banned in Germany) and visually it is different from iPads. Hardware-wise, I think the Galaxy Tab is on par with the iPad 2. Very fast. Response time very good. So I asked my bro-in-law how he likes it. He says he only uses it for web surfing.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Samsung planning legal offensive against Apple's unreleased iPhone 5