AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Verizon comes to Samsung's defense in Apple patent lawsuit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Verizon comes to Samsung's defense in Apple patent lawsuit

post #1 of 116
Thread Starter 
U.S. carrier Verizon Wireless has taken sides in the legal dispute between Apple and Samsung with a legal brief opposing a preliminary injunction against the South Korean company's smartphones and tablets.

The nation's largest wireless operator has submitted a request to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to file an amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," brief in support of Samsung, Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents reports. The brief would allow Verizon to intervene as a third party in the case.

Apple's request for a preliminary injunction in the U.S. against the Infuse 4G, Galaxy S 4G, Droid Charge and Galaxy Tab 10.1 was filed in July and is scheduled to be addressed in a hearing on Oct. 13.

The carrier argues that such an injunction "would hinder Verizon Wireless in developing and deploying its next generation high-speed LTE [fourth-generation] network, the job growth dependant on that network, and will undercut key public policy goals, including expansion of American's [sic] access to broadband networks and faster communication with emergency personnel."

Verizon was an early partner with handset makers making use of Google's Android mobile operating system, including Samsung. The carrier has faced off against rival AT&T, which held an exclusive lock on Apple's iPhone in the U.S. for three and a half years.

The company's reliance on Android has been reduced some since Apple released the CDMA iPhone 4 on Verizon in February. As of August, Verizon's Android market share in the U.S. has dropped from 51.4 percent to 41.1 percent since the release of the iPhone on its network.



Verizon appears to be stepping lightly in its decision to defend Samsung in Apple's patent case against the Korean electronics giant, likely in an effort to avoid damaging its newly minted partnership with Apple. But, Mueller believes the move will still be considered as "hostile" by Apple, noting that Verizon's actions are simply part of the "constant power struggle between carriers and device makers."

The company's brief formally addresses a software patent that Apple, just one of four intellectually property rights that it has brought against Samsung, he noted. Given that the other three patents in the suit are design patents, Verizon has avoided taking a stance, presumably to avoid the appearance of condoning any alleged "copying" done by Samsung.

Though Verizon notes in its brief that it "supports without reservation the protection of intellectual property rights," that claim is undermined by the fact that it is opposing the enforcement of those rights. The filing also states that it "takes no position on whether Apple is likely to succeed on the merits of its infringement claims," but it does offer an argument that the injunction would public interest.

"The requested injunction of certain Samsung products will harm Verizon Wireless and U.S. consumers. It also has the possibility of slowing the deployment of next-generation networks -- such as Verizon Wireless's -- contrary to the stated goals of the U.S. government," the document reads.

Verizon argues that an injunction would damage its efforts to spur adoption of 4G Long-Term Evolution "at a critical moment:" the holiday shopping season. The document points out that Samsung is "one of only six manufacturers" that has released a device with LTE technology.

The carrier also asserts that Apple has targeted only 4G devices in its preliminary injunction, while products in the main proceeding are "mainly older devices that are not designed to make use of Verizon Wireless's and other carriers' next-generation networks." But, Mueller objects to that line of argument, noting that preliminary injunctions require, by nature, a sense of urgency, so they must target new products in order to be considered by courts.

Verizon continued its public interest argument by highlighting "the importance of wireless broadband networks in helping first responders and other public safety officials," adding that "[s]peed and information are critical assets in an emergency." An injunction against Samsung would affect subscriber revenue, thereby stunting the expansion of Verizon's LTE network, "which is used by first responders," the company argued.



The legal battle between Apple and Samsung began in April and has quickly heated up. Apple has so far succeeded in blocking Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany and delaying it in Australia.

Samsung vowed this week to become "more aggressive" in its dispute with Apple, accusing the company of "free riding" on its intellectual property. According to one executive, Samsung was originally "respectful" and "passive" in its fight against Apple, the component maker's largest customer, but will no longer hold back.
post #2 of 116
And in related news Apple announces iPhone no longer available on Verizon...

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #3 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

And in related news Apple announces iPhone no longer available on Verizon...

No, much more likely that Apple buys out Samsung and crushes Verizon as payback.

Fun aside, most likely of all: Apple lets its legal team handle patent disputes and keeps its business from getting dragged down by unpredictable court battles.
post #4 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by aestival View Post

No, much more likely that Apple buys out Samsung and crushes Verizon as payback.

Fun aside, most likely of all: Apple lets its legal team handle patent disputes and keeps its business from getting dragged down by unpredictable court battles.

Ahhhh... Apple does not have nearly enough money to purchase Samsung, And if they did no way the south Korean Government would allow. Believe it or not Samsung really does help that country.


Edit: With more then 250 thousand koreans employed... They are the biggest Company in Korea. Being purchased by an american Company known to outsource jobs is not something the korean government will allow.
post #5 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post

Ahhhh... Apple does not have nearly enough money to purchase Samsung, And if they did no way the south Korean Government would allow. Believe it or not Samsung really does help that country.

Just to be more precise, Samsung rules that country in many aspects.
This signature is currently under maintenance, please check back later.

- Thank You
Reply
This signature is currently under maintenance, please check back later.

- Thank You
Reply
post #6 of 116
Verizon's just jealous Sprint gets to play the CDMA iPhone game.

"Can't innovate anymore my ass!" -- Phil Schiller

Reply

"Can't innovate anymore my ass!" -- Phil Schiller

Reply
post #7 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post

Ahhhh... Apple does not have nearly enough money to purchase Samsung, And if they did no way the south Korean Government would allow. Believe it or not Samsung really does help that country.


Edit: With more then 250 thousand koreans employed... They are the biggest Company in Korea. Being purchased by an american Company known to outsource jobs is not something the korean government will allow.

Either way, Samsung financial reporting for 2012 will show a loss from 2011 of approx 8 billion dollars.
post #8 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post

Either way, Samsung financial reporting for 2012 will show a loss from 2011 of approx 8 billion dollars.

Their Television department sucks and needs to be removed. But Samsung mobility shows record profits.

Trust me unless apple would like to bleed profits they should never get in the TV business. Margins are to low and the competition is too cutthroat.
post #9 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

And in related news Apple announces iPhone no longer available on Verizon...

If Verizon wants to Play footsie with Samsung instead of getting 4G phones from HTC and Motorola then Apple should cut them off and open the iPhone up to ever other carrier in Verizon's coverage area. If they thought competing with AT&T for 2 years put stress on the bottom line, just wait until they are the only carrier to not carry the iPhone. It's one thing to heavily advertise the competition over the iPhone but to publicly bite the hand that feeds you is STUPID!! Their contention that it would hinder their 4G deployment is ludicrous Samsung is not the only manufacturer of 4G devices. But they are the only manufacture to blatantly copy the look and feel of iDevices and as Apple contends, they don't mind the competition but they want to compete with another's innovation not their own design and look and feel.
KennDDS
Reply
KennDDS
Reply
post #10 of 116
Verizon is in the service provider business, and its job is to maximize profits in that business. They would be stupid to do otherwise.

Apple understands that, because it's in business for similar reasons.

They're both adults and will come to an understanding based on what's in their respective self-interest. It's nothing personal, and shouldn't be.

As the old saying goes, there are no friendships in business, only alliances of convenience and zones of mutual interest.
post #11 of 116
Verizon is fighting for survival. Pity.
post #12 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post

Trust me unless apple would like to bleed profits they should never get in the TV business. Margins are to low and the competition is too cutthroat.

So is the PC market and Apple seems to be doing just fine?
post #13 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Verizon is in the service provider business, and its job is to maximize profits in that business. They would be stupid to do otherwise.

Apple understands that, because it's in business for similar reasons.

They're both adults and will come to an understanding based on what's in their respective self-interest. It's nothing personal, and shouldn't be.

As the old saying goes, there are no friendships in business, only alliances of convenience and zones of mutual interest.

So what does Verizon do if Oracle get's its way of shutting down droid, most of Verizon's smart phone run's droid.
post #14 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post

So is the PC market and Apple seems to be doing just fine?

Apple maintains its margains by using OS X. They have a product that only they can obtain. They can charge a premium for it. However an Apple branded Television could not compete with their margins on price unless they where to offer something no one else can. So far they could in thoery just place an Apple tv inside it but in reality their are already so many T.V.s on the market that already have many of the basic functions as a T.V. with apple TV built into it. No one would want to pay 300$ more to have a TV with that built in when the set top box is only 100$. When they could buy a comparable product for 300$ less.
post #15 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by eacumm View Post

So what does Verizon do if Oracle get's its way of shutting down droid, most of Verizon's smart phone run's droid.

Why would oracle want to shut down android. (I think thats what you mean Android is an OS and Droid is a line of phones released on Verizon's network.) Their is no gain in oracle getting android stopped. If anything they would want it to be as successful as possible. They want royalties not to shut it down. Only apple and Microsoft stand to really lose by android OS being more powerful.
post #16 of 116
It's no surprise, Verizon makes big bucks by screwing Samsung devices and on the other hand they're not allow to touch the Jesus phone. If Samsung isn't stop their next phone might be name the iPhone 5 with the Apple logo and everything. If you seen the USB charger on the new Galaxy S 2 devices you would know what I'm talking about.
post #17 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Verizon is in the service provider business, and its job is to maximize profits in that business. They would be stupid to do otherwise.

Apple understands that, because it's in business for similar reasons.

They're both adults and will come to an understanding based on what's in their respective self-interest. It's nothing personal, and shouldn't be.

As the old saying goes, there are no friendships in business, only alliances of convenience and zones of mutual interest.

Hmmm... you must not have got the memo... logic, level headedness and understanding are not allowed in any Apple vs. Samsung discussions.

[Interesting timing for this announcement, though,... just before the launch of the iPhone 5. Has Verizon already made its big push for LTE or is that something that is going to happen at the same time as the launch of the iPhone 5?]
We know where you are. We know where youve been. We can more or less know what youre thinking about. - Eric Schmidt
Reply
We know where you are. We know where youve been. We can more or less know what youre thinking about. - Eric Schmidt
Reply
post #18 of 116
Verizon siding with Samsung could be costly to Verizon down the road. Verizon looking for preferential treatment from Samsung but is that really going to happen??
Stupid move by Verizon they just should never have taken any sides.
post #19 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Verizon is in the service provider business, and its job is to maximize profits in that business. They would be stupid to do otherwise.

Apple understands that, because it's in business for similar reasons.

They're both adults and will come to an understanding based on what's in their respective self-interest. It's nothing personal, and shouldn't be.

As the old saying goes, there are no friendships in business, only alliances of convenience and zones of mutual interest.

Verizon made a lot of money from Android-based phones which, at bottom, ripped off Apple and others. Google pulled a fast one. It made a mobile OS by using a technicality in patent law that lets an individual use the patented matter for their own personal use. They stole the intellectual property of others by the simple ruse of not making a direct profit from it. However, the manufacturers and sellers of those pirated properties have no such defense.

If Verizon gets hammered, it's only getting what it very richly deserves!
post #20 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Verizon continued its public interest argument by highlighting "the importance of wireless broadband networks in helping first responders and other public safety officials," adding that "[s]peed and information are critical assets in an emergency." An injunction against Samsung would affect subscriber revenue, thereby stunting the expansion of Verizon's LTE network, "which is used by first responders," the company argued.

This is bulls**t. First responder speed is a ploy to mask their real argument, which is to charge more for LTE. That's why they are really worried about subscribers having revenue. If Verizon was really worried about if we have enough money, they'd stop nicked-diming us to death with their added charges for things that should be part of the expensive contracts they offer.

To Verizon, anything that takes money away from subscribers is money they can't squeeze out of its customers.
post #21 of 116
Hey Verizon, when you are ordering your Samsung phones, telling them where and how you want your logo printed on them, tell them you want them to look less like an iPhone and when you are telling Samsung what software you want loaded on them, tell Samsung to make them work less like an iPhone.

Then you can continue safe in the knowledge that the crapware you inflict on your customers is protected and you don't have to pull this stupid "essential services" ruse.

This will get thrown out as fast as Google's whining complaints were thrown out of Microsoft vs Motorola.

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #22 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post

Apple maintains its margains by using OS X. They have a product that only they can obtain. They can charge a premium for it. However an Apple branded Television could not compete with their margins on price unless they where to offer something no one else can. So far they could in thoery just place an Apple tv inside it but in reality their are already so many T.V.s on the market that already have many of the basic functions as a T.V. with apple TV built into it. No one would want to pay 300$ more to have a TV with that built in when the set top box is only 100$. When they could buy a comparable product for 300$ less.

Rubbish. First of all Apple can charge a premium for being Apple(if they wanted, but my guess is they would not need to because..). Second, they could susidise the TV with App, movie and music sales.It won't be about the TV, it will be about the services.
post #23 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

Rubbish. First of all Apple can charge a premium for being Apple(if they wanted, but my guess is they would not need to because..). Second, they could susidise the TV with App, movie and music sales.It won't be about the TV, it will be about the services.

I can tell you one thing, if Apple does start making TV's then I know who WON'T be making the screens for them.

Pricing, dump the useless 3D bullish*t and Apple will undercut almost any manufacturer on the market.

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #24 of 116
Apple does not sell at a loss. Also they don't make much from the content.

If Apple is getting into the TV market, then be sure they've done their homework and think they can add value.
post #25 of 116
[QUOTE=Trust me unless apple would like to bleed profits they should never get in the TV business. Margins are to low and the competition is too cutthroat.[/QUOTE]

...like the phone business?
post #26 of 116
Stronger anti-piracy laws counter the public interest, but we're still implementing those.
post #27 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eye View Post

...like the phone business?

Who said that the phone makers had low margins on their smart phones?
The carriers didn't and don't generally make money on the phones but make the bucks from expensive contracts. The conceit was that p.c. guys couldn't make a good phone and would get stomped by the established handset makers. And even if they did somehow make a good phone no carrier would put up with Apple and cede any control of the user experience to Apple.
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
post #28 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by kriskkalu View Post

Stronger anti-piracy laws counter the public interest, but we're still implementing those.

Say what?
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #29 of 116
Verizon wants control of handsets that they sell. Samsung allows carriers complete control of their handsets. Apple doesn't. So the reason is obvious. Verizon (and other carriers) are afraid of Apple. Apple started the concept that cellphones' features and software are not to be controlled by carriers, but by the maker (Apple). This scarred the US carriers. Luckily for them, Android came and brought control back to the carriers. So in this situation, it's in the best interest of Verizon to support Samsung as Samsung continue to allow Verizon to molest and rape their phones, while Apple don't.
post #30 of 116
Damn you guys get flustered quickly. Did any of you bother to understand what amicus curiae means (intention and implication-wise, not definition) before you spewed all the Verizon hate? Their intention for filing an amicus curiae brief is likely entirely self-serving. If it happens to aid Samsung, so be it, but their intention is not to directly support Samsung's interests.

Even if you didn't take a moment to understand what was going on legally, why would you think Verizon would partner up with Samsung against Apple? Verizon is in the business of making money; I doubt any of you will argue against that, despite your contrariness. If Verizon wants to make the most money possible, then they won't favor one hardware manufacturer at the expense of another. It's in their best interest to offer devices representing the widest possible swath of the market.

Everything that isn't expressly pro-Apple isn't anti-Apple. I promise.
post #31 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

Damn you guys get flustered quickly. Did any of you bother to understand what amicus curiae means (intention and implication-wise, not definition) before you spewed all the Verizon hate? Their intention for filing an amicus curiae brief is likely entirely self-serving. If it happens to aid Samsung, so be it, but their intention is not to directly support Samsung's interests.

Even if you didn't take a moment to understand what was going on legally, why would you think Verizon would partner up with Samsung against Apple? Verizon is in the business of making money; I doubt any of you will argue against that, despite your contrariness. If Verizon wants to make the most money possible, then they won't favor one hardware manufacturer at the expense of another. It's in their best interest to offer devices representing the widest possible swath of the market.

Everything that isn't expressly pro-Apple isn't anti-Apple. I promise.

There is one huge problem with this statement. Verizon requesting the right to insert a brief of any kind into this suit means they have to take one side or the other. This is a case of Apple vs Samsung, so they have to be on one side or the other, unless they were considered a hostile witness. In this case, they desire to input their 2 cents. So it is against Apple! Simple.
post #32 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

And in related news Apple announces iPhone no longer available on Verizon...

What would be the point in that? It would only harm Apple even more and open the door to other device makers.

Apple should just extract a royalty from Samsung and move on.
post #33 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post

Apple maintains its margains by using OS X. They have a product that only they can obtain. They can charge a premium for it. However an Apple branded Television could not compete with their margins on price unless they where to offer something no one else can. So far they could in thoery just place an Apple tv inside it but in reality their are already so many T.V.s on the market that already have many of the basic functions as a T.V. with apple TV built into it. No one would want to pay 300$ more to have a TV with that built in when the set top box is only 100$. When they could buy a comparable product for 300$ less.



Apple has the software and eco-system that no other manufacture can come close to. It's not about the TV, it's about content and style. No one can touch Apple in either of those departments!
post #34 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post

Their Television department sucks and needs to be removed.

Samsung Reported as Top TV Brand in North America 1st Half of 2011

http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-rep...2011-09178580/
post #35 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post

Ahhhh... Apple does not have nearly enough money to purchase Samsung, And if they did no way the south Korean Government would allow. Believe it or not Samsung really does help that country.


Edit: With more then 250 thousand koreans employed... They are the biggest Company in Korea. Being purchased by an american Company known to outsource jobs is not something the korean government will allow.

Indeed!

I start to think that sooner or later, Asian companies will buy major USA companies.
All of them, Google, Microsoft and even Apple.

With back door government backing chinese companies will buy USA ones, they have the money.
What USA companies makes money out of android or Windows?
Looks like only Asian companies makes money both out of Windows and Android.

USA will be like UK, irrelevant technology wise.
post #36 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post

Their Television department sucks and needs to be removed. But Samsung mobility shows record profits.

Trust me unless apple would like to bleed profits they should never get in the TV business. Margins are to low and the competition is too cutthroat.

He's talking about the approx. 7.8 billion worth of business Apple has with Samsung for components --- not Apple getting into TVs and competing with Samsung head to head (which it couldn't do within the year).

No, Apple could very well be in a position to take all its Samsung business to Japanese partners with whom they have already talked. Certainly, Samsung is going to be losing some business from Apple over this, you can count on it.

It's not just that Samsung are shamelessly copying the iPhone as close as they can -- it may very well turn out that they have done so by using inside knowledge from the divisions that are producing components for Apple. This is a big no, no, and they ought to lose business from all their clients as a result.
post #37 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkalu View Post

Verizon is fighting for survival. Pity.

given that their stock is up about 50% in less than 2 years, they seem to be doing better than that. Looks like they are thriving, rather than fighting for survival.
post #38 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Verizon is in the service provider business, and its job is to maximize profits in that business. They would be stupid to do otherwise.

Apple understands that, because it's in business for similar reasons.

They're both adults and will come to an understanding based on what's in their respective self-interest. It's nothing personal, and shouldn't be.

As the old saying goes, there are no friendships in business, only alliances of convenience and zones of mutual interest.

+1 and well-said.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #39 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

Damn you guys get flustered quickly. Did any of you bother to understand what amicus curiae means (intention and implication-wise, not definition) before you spewed all the Verizon hate? Their intention for filing an amicus curiae brief is likely entirely self-serving. If it happens to aid Samsung, so be it, but their intention is not to directly support Samsung's interests.

Even if you didn't take a moment to understand what was going on legally, why would you think Verizon would partner up with Samsung against Apple? Verizon is in the business of making money; I doubt any of you will argue against that, despite your contrariness. If Verizon wants to make the most money possible, then they won't favor one hardware manufacturer at the expense of another. It's in their best interest to offer devices representing the widest possible swath of the market.

Everything that isn't expressly pro-Apple isn't anti-Apple. I promise.

Impressive! TWO logical and cool-headed responses on the same page where Apple and Samsung mentions appear.

Good post with a good explanation WakeFinance.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #40 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

Rubbish. First of all Apple can charge a premium for being Apple(if they wanted, but my guess is they would not need to because..). Second, they could susidise the TV with App, movie and music sales.It won't be about the TV, it will be about the services.

You missed the memo from Tim Cook about Apple just breaking even with sales of music and videos. Likely the same story with apps. Apple profits are mostly about devices, a bit on software and virtually none on what you call *services*.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Verizon comes to Samsung's defense in Apple patent lawsuit