Samsung vows to step up legal action against Apple for 'free riding' on its inventions - Page 2

Good point.


Fair enough, though Samsung still has about $20 billion (at least from what I found). Good points on profits and cash, nevertheless.

^This... Just.... This

To say there are few choices in design for a tablet is in my view not true. As far as hardware is concerned, ask Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and Sony. All have different designs. Amazon and Barnes and Noble's products are actually selling. Sony's designs are interesting and initially received good reviews, but the final products seem to be cheaply made, which undermines the design.


I am not necessarily opposed to allowing companies to copy one another's designs. It works in the clothing industry where copyright protections do not apply. Yet, that is a highly innovative, competitive, and growing industry. The players there though know what they are getting into before they sink tons of money into something. However, the system is set up differently for other industries, and before Apple invested hundreds of millions of dollars into research, it did so understanding IP law is supposed to protect this investment. It is far less costly for Samsung to bring to market a copy of an Apple product because it has Apple's product as a model, and it has the added benefit of already manufacturing many of the products for Apple that is needs. So, Apple is essentially subsidizing the sale of Samsung's products through the research dollars Samsung didn't have to spend.

I also disagree that Apple is just as guilty of copying. For the most part, Apple seems to be pretty respectfully. There is a difference between blindly copying something, and being inspired by something and then creating your own interpretation. When Apple is inspired by an idea it often buys the idea outright (e.g. iTunes) or adds to an idea (often times either buys or employs the original creator). In the notification case, Apple seems to be inspired by a popular iOS Notification System sold to the jailbroken market. Apple hired the creator of that Application.

While I don't think Apple blatantly takes anything from Android, even if it did, I wouldn't find that problematic. Google practically entourages with its anti-intellectual property rants, and its blatant copying of others work. Hard to respect a competitor who doesn't respect anybody else.

It's not about how Samsung tablets are also rectangular with a glass front, or Samsung phones having the home button in the same location as the iPhone. That would be ridiculous, just like you said. The problem Apple has with Samsung, is that they are purposefully trying to copy those (superficial) aspects that people associate with iPad & iPhone, to try to confuse and trick buyers into thinking they are the same thing: design, packaging, marketing, the way the software (touchwiz, kies) looks.


I sincerely disagree here. I think there many, many people will confuse Galaxy Tabs and the Galaxy S with the iPhone, and buy them because they think it's the same thing. Of course no-one is going to miss the giant 'SAMSUNG' logo, or the lack of an Apple logo. People are not _that_ stupid. Instead, they see 2 tablets from different manufacturers, who look almost exactly the same, are marketed as having the same kind of applications, are sold at similar prices, and judge they will have the same capabilities. For many people, a tablet is no different from a DVD player or a Microwave, to them, they are all the same, and they all do the same thing. Only when they get home with their Galaxy Tab and find out none of the cool iPad apps they have heard about are available, or can't for the life of them figure out how to configure the WiFi or get some music on the thing, they will realize iPads and Galaxy Tabs are basically completely different devices, from a usability perspective.

None of this is saying only Apple should be allowed to make tablets or something, just that I find it pretty distasteful how Samsung is deliberately trying to get a free ride on the success Apple has had with its products, by basically stealing their product strategy.


This is a bad example, as there was nothing unique or innovative about the Android notification system in the first place, which is just a rehash of a million other notification tray implementations we've seen on desktop OS's and mobile phones. Also, I don't actually think the iOS 5 notification tray 'looks and feels' similar to Android. It operates in almost the exact same way, but visually, it looks quite different.

I know this is splitting hairs, but I simply think referring to how iOS 5 'copied' the Android notification system simply goes to show how innovative iOS actually is, when the notification tray in iOS 5 is the only thing people can come up with as an example of Apple copying anyone.


Agreed, this has all come to one big dickfight, and I don't like any of it.

That said, I think the Android camp is simply getting what it deserves, by pretending to be open and free. There's almost nothing 'open' about Android except that you can see the source code (except for all 3.x releases), and the only reason you could say it is 'free' is because Google took a deliberate choice to simply take whatever they could get their grubby hands on from other parties, trying to 'sell' it as their own, not negotiating any licensing deals, all while being anti-competitive in the way they treat their hardware partners (think Skyhook/Motorola, and the pressure they put on their 'partners' to prevent them from replacing Google services).

I don't care about who is copying who that much, as long as it doesn't come down to simply trying to KIRF succesful products like Samsung does. What does rub me completely the wrong way is the hypocrisy around it especially from Google, who simply don't practice what they preach, pretending to be something they are not, and pretending they care about Android end-users (which they don't). It's stuff like this that really puts me off when it comes to Android.

Perhaps Samsung WANTS Apple to stop buying components from them - so that they can either use their production capacity to build their own products and or be able to sell more components to other companies at higher margins per item then they get from Apple.

The reactions here are largely over the top. These patents are unlikely to be of much value, because as others have stated, most of Samsung's patents are licensed on FRAND terms. However, Samsung is jockeying for position for a settlement, which is what they seem to want really quickly now.

Their CEO's problem is that his time is running short. Currently Samsung is making the most popular Android phone, but if HTC picks up their game, and/or Googrola comes up with a better phone and Samsung's Android profits drop, his shareholders won't tolerate this anymore. Hence their need to settle quickly.

There is a simpler solution if that was the case.

Just say no. Its not like they are forced to manufacture for Apple.

True and neither company will dump anything like 20 billion down this hole.


Maybe. But, a lot of what Samsung does for Apple is custom fab on the A4/A5, since there are no other customers the size of Apple, they would incur significant additional overhead spreading that around.

Hmm, what's everyone's advice for Samsung?

Should they just stop making Galaxy devices in order to save the semiconductor business?

I know, I know. Some of you will say Samsung should stop infringing on Apple IP. Take a good look at the facts - Apple is the most sued company in the world for IP infringement. Their track record is very murky. 3G technology is a patent mine field. How could they possibly not infringe on anyone's patents? But that does not stop Apple.

They don't even respect other companies' basic copyrights, and go ahead and start using iXXX as product names before any discussion.

Apple is a great company but they are using their leadership position to be a bully. In some cases, they are justified. One or two Samsung products do come too close. In others, not so much. Bottom line - how many people are confusing the Galaxy Tab with iPads? Clearly not many because, according to all of yous, no one is buying any tablet except for iPads.

I don't feel, as a satisfied customer of Apple, I need to blindly support everything they do and bash every competitor of theirs. Why do so many of you feel such an obligation?

I see this argument a lot, but I don't think it's true. Before Apple entered the phone market and then the tablet market, there were tons of variations. Just go back to the pre-launch speculations. There were no shortages or ideas for what Apple might do, what Apple should do, and what Apple would do, etc.

Then Apple produces a product. People are surprised. Competitors talk up what a stupid design it is. And then magically a year later, that's suddenly the only way to do it. Samsung's efforts are especially egregious. It's not a case of not being able to see other ways to do a thing. It's a case of copying every detail as exactly as possible, with a couple of token changes thrown in to throw off the laziest hounds.

First, Samsung is apparently being run like a mafia. Big boss seems to be bullying his way in.

Second, Samsung has thousands of patents, but mostly pertain to manufacturing.
Many of their patents are great, you can see that from the quality of their top-notch manufacturing.

Unfortunately for Samsung, these patents are useless against Apple, since Apple is not a manufacturer.

I would say this is a reasonable assessment.

Samsung seems to be acting really quite stupidly here. Their lawyers are making arguments that are patently ridiculous on the face of it.

Usually when that happens (when smart lawyers make dumb statements, and big otherwise smart companies do dumb things), it's a reflection of a top-down, patriarchal kind of management structure.

If one dumb guy at the top can make moves that the whole company follows (despite how dumb they are), it's because they are both scared of the leader and at the same time not empowered enough to do anything about it themselves. That alone is evidence of a broken culture within the company.

Which iXXX products are you referring to? They paid for iCloud and iPad, that has been well documented.

Hmmm. . . Not sure that's a great talking point.

The 'how could there be any other design' arguments are ridiculous I agree. Imagine how far Timex would get if they made an almost identical watch to a Rolex then argued the same way!

And just imagine how silly it would sound if Timex were told they couldn't sell a thin watch shaped like a Rolex (round) with a glass face, a small bezel and a single button for setting the time. You're correct. That would be ridiculous.

Might no be so simple - especially from a PR standpoint.

Or maybe it is a left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing type situation.

I've heard this theory before, but from a business perspective it doesn't make any sense, unless you hate making money.

If Samsung was really strapped for production capacity, and thinks they could make more money producing stuff for other customers, they would not 'free up' capacity by showing current customers the door, instead they would work to increase their production capacity. And even _if_ they were stupid enough to tell any of their component customers they don't want to supply them anymore, they would rather ditch 10 small customers than 1 big one such as Apple.

What a lot of people don't realize is that you can't just walk into a semiconductor fab and say 'hey guys I want you to produce a few million of these'. It takes very large initial investments to setup a production line for any kind of IC as complex as the application processor in the iPhone: trial runs, process and mask optimizations, tweaks to the layout you are producing, tweaks to the machine settings you are using, experience how prlonged production runs of that particular design affect imaging performance and how to mitigate them (ie: application specific calibration), and so on and so forth. Producing complex IC's like this is anything but loading a reticle and pressing a button, it's almost a science.

The more chips you produce with the exact same design, the better you get at it, lowering costs and increasing margins. A customer like Apple really is the dream of any fondry: they need millions of chips using the exact same design, for an extended and predictable period of around 2 years. There really isn't a single foundry in the world who would turn down the kind of business Apple brings in, no way in the world.

Metaphora figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

I was not attacking your belief system. I am sorry if that was the impression I made.

People make the "Samsung doesn't want Apple argument" because Samsung's actions make no sense. I believe the answer is much simpler. Samsung is just too big. There is a complete lack of centralized control. There is no coordinated vision for the company. It is a conglomerate without purpose. The companies only goal is to make money. Unfortunately for investors, they seem to be doing a progressively worse job of that every quarter.

Thank you for that text. It appears to be extracted verbatim from the "F/RAND" article on the website "IT Law Wiki". That gives an overview about F/RAND licenses in general, rather than discussing the specific terms that are in place at the relevant standards body in this case.

That is, in fact, exactly my point! We're spewing forth generalizations about what Samsung is, and is not, permitted to do under its F/RAND commitments, without knowing for sure exactly what terms Samsung had actually committed to!

For example, in at least one of Samsung's F/RAND patent declarations filed at the ETSI, they added a rider requiring "reciprocity". What, exactly, is the form of the reciprocity that might be stipulated by that rider? I haven't seen anything yet to specifically clarify that point.

Thanks for the Great Post.

I think there may be 3rd outcome that Samsung's CEO is very concerned about and that is being disgraced as a copycat manufacturer. I think public perception of a company's values and integrity may weigh heavily on the minds of their top management. Samsung's vision is to dominant (revenue, profit, mixture of products etc,) the tech industry by the end of the decade. The legal actions taken by Apple taint their self-image as being a premier company that designs and creates great products. This losing of face may be just too painfully intolerable to their ethos and pride to acquiesce to.

Also a possible 4th outcome is that Samsung must surely feel threatened by Apple in their quest in achieving world dominance in the tech sector. Apple consistently delivers great products and services that has elevated its position to the World Leader in Technology, as thought by many. This is the very position Samsung sees itself winning but must out-battle Apple to do it. So I think Samsung may see this battle over patents as the first of perhaps many battles in the years ahead for the top-dog position.

I do agree with you though that Samsung is taking a big risk to engage in battle now with Apple, especially if their chances of winning are less than 50/50 which seems likely at this time.

When Apple threw the match to stop other manufacturers making products it started the patent wars. Problem is even for how awesome the iphone is it is only 4 years old, these competitors have been at this for far longer with deeper patents. It made since for samsung to not go after apple too hard when it was a supplier, but with apple moving away and becoming so aggressive it is now time to change stance. Style, form factor, layout; all these elements can be found in various competitors long before apple sold a single phone. Palm essentially had all three since the early 90's, and motorola was not far behind, in the end apple is waging a war not protecting its rights. Love apple products, hate apple strategy.

Thanks for making my point. I guess you have never seen a Rolex knock off. It's hard to tell the difference ... Oh and they are illegal.

I thought the Apple lawsuits against Samsung were stupid. I agreed with Samsung, how many different ways of making a tablet could there be? But, just yesterday I was in OfficeMax to get some toner and I was walking down an aisle. At the end of an aisle was a display of five different tablets. I only glanced at first then was surprised to see an iPad sitting at the end of the display. I didn't know that OfficeMax sold iPads so did a double take. It took me a moment to realize that I wasn't looking at an iPad but the Samsung tablet. It was then that I realized that Apple's claims had merit. Here was five tablets and not one of them looked exactly like the others, but the Samsung tablet would be very hard to distinguish from an iPad, not without looking closely.

So I now feel that Samsung is just trying to get a free ride off of Apple's design and whining like a little baby now that they can't get their way. Those other four tablets prove that you can make your design still be unique. I hope Samsung looses this stupid whining complaint and gets back to what they were good at, home electronics.

Exactly. Perhaps those that argue it is the 'only design' are design challenged and cannot actually see the Ives touch. Those that argue against it probably think a MacBook Pro is the old obvious design for a laptop or a Rolex looks like any other watch. I guess you and I are just more gifted Of courser those that cannot see it perhaps don't want to as they have argued themselves into a silly position and are trying not to lose face. Kind of like Samsung.

The cops confiscate Prada and Rolex knock offs ... time to round up those Apple knock offs too

I didn't know you could patent 'unusable, amateurish interfaces'.

This is just like apple back in the 90's---apple innovates and then stagnates. Instead of innovating further, Apple just start getting lawsuit happy. Doesn't work.

History repeats itself.

Hell yes, Microsoft have ben doing it for over thirty years.

The term "flak" as applied to PR comes to mind.

ROFL. Is this a different Apple you are talking about. Surely not the currently most innovative company on planet earth!

Note to self. Ignore trolls, on their first post in particular.

Which is countered with aluminum chaff. Apple can use some of the waste from machining those MacBook Pros.

So are you arguing that they are no longer innovating (again), or just that they have started to defend their innovations in court (again), or both? Do you think that innovative work should not be defended from copying?

I think you will see that their "innovation" will not hold up in court--and it really doesn't matter. They are in the process of being surpassed by their counterparts. Apple is good at starting a trend or niche, not dominating (except in simple devices like mp3 players) due to their oppressive policies. People like freedom.

If you don't know of these cases already, it may be you have automatic filter on.

Equally well documented as iCloud are the cases of Apple usurping the names iPhone, , iBooks, iPad (perhaps not in US but definitely in other countries). Everyone knew Cisco had a product called iPhone and yet Apple went ahead and used the name anyhow. Maybe they paid for the use of the name iPad in the US, but it is trademarked in various countries around the world. Apple does not appear to care.

Apple's transgressions go beyond names. The image they used for the launch of Apple TV was strikingly similar to that from the portfolio of a professional photographer. Again, Apple ignored this until they were sued.

Ever used the iPhone app Classics? Well, when iBooks was released, the developers of Classics sure found it familiar. The book collection is presented on a wooden bookcase. The contents are presented in the form of a book with pages being flipped. (You might argue - how many different ways can a book app be designed? Well, ask Apple how many different ways can a thin tablet be designed.)

Are these the action of a company that respects IP?

I love my iPhones, iPods, iPads and Macs, but the truth is Apple doesn't generally have a healthy respect for trademarks and copyrights. They assume they can buy the owners off ... often after the fact. Sometimes, they simply assume small businesses would not have the wherewithal to sue.

Just because I love my wife does not mean her farts don't stink. Just because I love Apple products doesn't mean I respect all their actions.

ROFL! You're quick . . .

Yes Apple's success really show how right you are ...

Last reply from me ... you are on my ignore list now (probably many times over lol)

Does this mean Samsung will now be relocating it's corporate headquarters to east Texas?

Actually I have. In fact my younger brother is a recognized national expert in Rolex certification FWIW. And he doesn't base his decision on whether it's round, thin, small bezel and single button. Those are common and expected traits and not what makes a Rolex unique.

Samsung sure feels as though they are right. Perhaps there may be some validity into what they are saying?