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 3

post #81 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by rasimo View Post

Here's a Galaxy S 2 ad that "slavishly" copies Apple's "Think Different" ad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu0I...e_gdata_player

You wouldn't mistake the phone for an iPhone but creatively speaking it Samsung definitely steps on Apple's toes. Its pretty shameless and clearly shows where Samsung gets their inspiration. I am not sure if Apple or Samsung benefits most from this kind of ad, however.
Quote:

This is different and stands on its own feet, without impersonating Apple.
post #82 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack99 View Post

This pretty much, though I don't think Apple controls the majority any longer. That might explain their insecurity. A shrinking market share means they fear becoming sieged from all sides.


Apple has never controlled the "majority" of the smartphone market.
iPhone's market share is growing NOT "shrinking".
Ergo, nothing much to feel "insecure" about.


Apart from that, spot on.
post #83 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by rasimo View Post

Here's a Galaxy S 2 ad that "slavishly" copies Apple's "Think Different" ad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu0I...e_gdata_player...

I like how Samsung's ads used to say "the best screen" and now they say "the most vivid screen" and they used to say, "the fastest phone" but now they say "our fastest phone."

Someone is being extra careful about what they say lately, and if nothing comes out of Apple's lawsuit but that, I still think it's a win.
post #84 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmmx View Post

The implied premise there is that the telecommunications functions require their patents. But such patents as become part of telcom standards are required to uphold FRAND principles. In this case, they can not withhold licensing them for Fair Reasonable and NonDiscriminatory fees.

In many cases (I believe), such fees are covered in the parts Apple buys.

So I do not see any real threat in these suits. Samsung is just blowing a lot of hot air.

I agree too, which is why Samsung is fighting this battle in Korea. I believe it is possible Samsung holds he Korean patents on nearly everything.

I know nothing about Korean law, but it is clear Samsung knows they only have a case at home.
post #85 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

It's so funny (to non-Americans I suppose), how the word "democrat" which refers to possibly the single most important political principle ever discovered and has been honoured and revered since the time of ancient Greece, has become an insult in late 20th century America.

Yeah, but funny in a kind of roll your eyes / shake your head / shrug (all at once), kind of way.

Not sure if you'd call democracy a 'discovery' ;-).
post #86 of 155
deleted
post #87 of 155
deleted
post #88 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?

Dunno if you did or not. You're much smarter than I am about the hardware.
I'm going by other tech sites that say there's no way that Apple can completely avoid dealing with Samsung.

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2011/08/sam...phone-4-parts/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #89 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

And when they did, such as using Toshiba for MBA SSDs, Apple got such poor results that they later went exclusively with Samsung:
http://gigaom.com/apple/macbook-air-...d-state-drive/

Moreover, AppleInsider reports that Apple's contract with Samsung includes "about $7.8 billion worth of components from Samsung this year. The parts will reportedly be for Apple's mobile products, including the iPhone and iPad, and include liquid crystal displays, mobile application processors and NAND flash memory chips."
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...l_samsung.html

The question was not whether Apple will stop using any Samsung components, but if the could if it made business sense. My answer would be yes. The SSD example is a bit stupid since there are many, many SSD's that are not from Samsung, yet faster than what is in the MBA.

Apple is already reducing their dependence on Samsung as a supplier, even though the value of components they are buying from them is increasing (Apple sells more of about every product they make than ever before, remember?). The billion dollar investment Tim Cook talked about to 'secure long term component supplies' will most definitely not have gone to Samsung either. I expect Apple to move away from Samsung to suppliers that don't directly compete with them slowly, bit steadily.
post #90 of 155
deleted
post #91 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

You wouldn't mistake the phone for an iPhone but creatively speaking it Samsung definitely steps on Apple's toes. Its pretty shameless and clearly shows where Samsung gets their inspiration. I am not sure if Apple or Samsung benefits most from this kind of ad, however.

This is different and stands on its own feet, without impersonating Apple.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make, however, I didn't put it as eloquently as you did.
post #92 of 155
It would be surprising if Apple does not run into problems with this continued fight. You can't take a step in the mobile space without stepping on someone's patent piss pool in some country. So Samsung has a point. But more shocking is the fact that Samsung is willing to escalate publicly. The loss of Apple as a customer is absolutely huge.
post #93 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by tumme-totte View Post

According to translate.google.com:

Why Europe's ppammatgo gaedeuripyiya in Korea - are you doing this? Why go to Europe, I'm calling the lawsuit in South Korea's skittish?

Well, Google isn't perfect either...

왜 유럽에서 빰맞고 한국에서 개드립이야- 뭐 하자는거야 이거? 유럽가서 소송걸어야지 왜 한국에서 까부는거야?


The above phrase can be translated as below:
Why make a fuss in Korea when you've been slapped in the face in Europe? What are you trying to do? Go sue in Europe, not in Korea!

So, he's apparently an Apple iPhone user/fan and dislikes iPhone being blocked in Korea. He's pissed at Samsung's tactics.
post #94 of 155
deleted
post #95 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuniverse View Post

왜 유럽에서 빰맞고 한국에서 개드립이야- 뭐 하자는거야 이거? 유럽가서 소송걸어야지 왜 한국에서 까부는거야?


The above phrase can be translated as below:
Why make a fuss in Korea when you've been slapped in the face in Europe? What are you trying to do? Go sue in Europe, not in Korea!

So, he's apparently an Apple iPhone user/fan and dislikes iPhone being blocked in Korea. He's pissed at Samsung's tactics.

I wonder how German Samsung fans feel
post #96 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post

Samsung would win any litigation that is held in South Korea. This would at least save Samsung "face" when they loose all impartial litigations.

That's quite a biased and borderline racist suggestion.

There's no guarantee Samsung would win in SK. I think they are just reaching for something to hit back against Apple.
post #97 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

That's quite a biased and borderline racist suggestion.

Not sure you know what race is. How is that racist at all?

He's just claiming domestic favoritism. It's the same scenario as if someone claimed that Apple would be protected from international litigation in the US. Would that make someone Americist?

Not sure how that can be classified as racist.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #98 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Samsung would be quite happy to have Apple's other attacks turn out as favorably as the Dutch court ruled for the EU:
http://www.businessworld.in/business...tch-Court.html

Samsung would be happy to receive a court order banning the sale of their phones in several European countries by October 13th?

Did you read the article or just the misleading headline?
post #99 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

That's quite a biased and borderline racist suggestion.

There's no guarantee Samsung would win in SK. I think they are just reaching for something to hit back against Apple.

There is no guarantee, but his comment was in no way racist..
post #100 of 155
deleted
post #101 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Samsung has already planned 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 products when Apple attempts to release the iPhone 5 in Korea.

"Just after 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.

Another executive with the company highlighted alternative strategies that its legal team has planned. "We are taking different tactics since we are quite confident," he said. "If Samsung wins in Germany that will give us a big breakthrough and so will other envisioned efforts against such products as the iPhone 5."

In June, a U.S. judge denied a request by Samsung to see Apple's next-generation iPhone. The company had filed the motion as a counter to Apple's request to see unreleased products by Samsung. Apple had, however, restricted its request to already-announced products, while Samsung was asking to see devices that Apple has yet to announce.

Samsung officials also told the publication that Apple's fifth-generation iPhone would add near-field communication (NFC) technology to introduce e-wallet functionality. Apple itself has given no indication that it will add NFC capability to the next iPhone, though rumors have swirled about the feature, with one recent report claiming that it will arrive either on the fifth or sixth generation of the handset.

Employees of the company, which doubles as a rival and supplier to Apple, have leaked information regarding upcoming Apple products in the past. Last week, a former Samsung manager admitted to leaking information on the unreleased iPad while working for the company in 2009.

The patent war between Apple and Samsung has quickly escalated since the iPhone maker fired the first shot in April. At least 23 lawsuits are pending between the two companies across a number of countries. Apple has seen a few early victories against Samsung, including a permanent ban preventing its rival from selling the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in Germany.

If they have filed any paper work based upon any prior knowledge given the parts they were building, they will have voided their non disclosure agreement. Samsung can not start any process prior to the actual release of the product, or they would be using NDA information to base their suit on, if this is true, then the suit will be null and void, as they used information that their legal department could not have their hands on legally until the actual launch of the product. IN a word, they BLEW it! Good!
post #102 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Those familiar with the details of the Dutch court ruling understand that all of Apple's allegations against Samsung were dismissed with one exception: the scroll-back effect when one gets to the end of a list. And even there, the court gave Samsung many weeks to issue a patch to address it, with no penalties incurred in the meantime, so the likelihood of it having any practical impact on Samsung is close to zero.

They were dismissed with respect to a preliminary injunction. At the main proceedings these other patents can still be upheld. The various preliminary injunction victories for both sides are just that: preliminary. Tactically important but strategically so-so. Nice to put pressure on Samsung but neither Apple nor Samsung will be significantly hurt by these.

I've always thought that the slide to unlock patent rather bogus anyway...but I thought the same about 1-click and that was upheld.

Either way, it's pretty idiotic for Samsung to piss off Apple in this fashion. As someone pointed out above, Apple has a history of investing in supplier capacity and capabilities to the tune of hundreds of millions. That money is going to flow into Samsung competitors along with more Apple business. A double whammy.

Even where Samsung has a definitive advantage over competitors will get eroded away if Apple pumps funding onto them in order to be able to move away from Samsung components.
post #103 of 155
deleted
post #104 of 155
OldAppleGuy, the article says that Samsung is filing after the iPhone 5 is announced, and that assumes there's truth to the story to begin with.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #105 of 155
deleted
post #106 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

A company is not allowed to have its legal counsel review the NDAs it's being asked to sign?

You should read a little better, I am not talking about the NDA, I am talking about what the NDA covers! If the company builds parts for APPLE and uses its knowledge of those parts to start preparing a suit against it prior to APPLE releasing the product that uses those parts, it is violating its NDA!

It can not share the information internally until Apple actually releases the product!
post #107 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.

auto makers do sue each other over things such as model names and such: http://www.examiner.com/ford-in-nati...k-infringement
post #108 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

OldAppleGuy, the article says that Samsung is filing after the iPhone 5 is announced, and that assumes there's truth to the story to begin with.

they are filing after Apple releases the product, buy how could it know it needs to or should file suite "after" Apple releases the product unless they are using NDA information internally inappropriately?

You all have to think a little bigger than this.... In other words, how could they know they should file a suite unless they are using Apple proprietary information? Their legal department should have absolutely no information to base even a "going to sue" until the product is actually released.... Lets get a clue here people....
post #109 of 155
deleted
post #110 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Thanks for the clarification. I hadn't read the NDA myself, so I wasn't aware that it included that specific clause. I'm impressed to read that you have a copy, but may I ask how you got it without a violation of its terms?

To be fair, you probably don't have to read any particular NDA to know how NDAs work. Under any of the NDAs that I have seen, using the information covered to prepare for a lawsuit would definitely be breaching it.
post #111 of 155
deleted
post #112 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Oh, on that guess you would be wrong. It would be funny if I were able to tell you just how wrong you are, but with some of the regulars here being as unpredictably erratic as they are I try to give as little information about my work history as possible. Suffice to say that if you look at the logos around your office, chances are I've traded NDAs with about half of them.

I'm not sure what guess you are referring to - I wasn't aware that I had made one. I was stating my experience of NDAs, which may be different from yours. From your comment on logos, you may have more experience with NDAs with these kinds of commercial entities, and they may be phrased differently than the kind I am used to dealing with.

Either way, I take it that you are saying it would not be unusual for an NDA to be used like this?
post #113 of 155
deleted
post #114 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

With corporate-wide power of attorney, no one farts in a large org without it running by counsel. That counsel would have access to operational details would not only be normal, it would be abnormal if that were not the case.

I have no issue with that, but it is only part of the problem. Running an NDA through your legal department is expected, and quite different from using the confidential information covered by an NDA, that you had agreed to and signed, to prepare a legal case against the other party. Can you comment on whether you are aware of that course of action being successful?
post #115 of 155
deleted
post #116 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

More to the point, we might ask whether the judge will agree with your interpretation in this case. That's really all that matters here, and thus far the case has not been thrown out over such a claim.

I don't think that there is a case to throw out yet - just a leaked threat of one. And I wasn't trying to make an interpretation - just raising a question that I had hoped, from your earlier comments, you might have some insight into. Unless I am missing something, from your response it appears that you don't. It's always disappointing when that happens.
post #117 of 155
deleted
post #118 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

I've always thought that the slide to unlock patent rather bogus anyway...but I thought the same about 1-click and that was upheld.

It Europe the 1-Click patent wasn't upheld. It failed the obviousness test.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #119 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Suffice to say that if you look at the logos around your office, chances are I've traded NDAs with about half of them.

Ah.... boasting on the internet, anonymously?
post #120 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnOldAplGuy View Post

If they have filed any paper work based upon any prior knowledge given the parts they were building, they will have voided their non disclosure agreement. Samsung can not start any process prior to the actual release of the product, or they would be using NDA information to base their suit on, if this is true, then the suit will be null and void, as they used information that their legal department could not have their hands on legally until the actual launch of the product. IN a word, they BLEW it! Good!

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.
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