or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung files new patent infringement suit against Apple in South Korea
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung files new patent infringement suit against Apple in South Korea

post #1 of 43
Thread Starter 
The number of lawsuits between Samsung and Apple continues to grow, as on Wednesday Samsung revealed it had filed another patent infringement claim in South Korea, accusing the iPhone 4S and iPad 2 of infringing on three patents.

The suit filed in a court in Seoul alleges that Apple's latest smartphone and its second-generation tablet infringe on patents related to displaying data, the user interface, and short text messages, according to Reuters. There are now more than 30 lawsuits between Apple and Samsung spanning across 10 countries.

The latest filing comes as Apple is expected to show off its next-generation iPad at a media event scheduled to begin today at 10 a.m. Pacific, 1 p.m. Eastern in San Francisco.

If history is any indication, Samsung could act quickly in an attempt to block sales of Apple's next iPad. Last October, Samsung filed lawsuits almost immediately after the iPhone 4S was unveiled, attempting to block the launch of the device in France and Italy.

The latest suit also comes after it was revealed on Tuesday that Apple has offered settlements to both Samsung and Motorola in its patent infringement disputes. It was said that Apple has sought royalties of between $5 and $15 per Android-based handset sold by its rivals.

Apple reportedly entered into negotiations with Samsung before it took the company to court. The iPhone maker's first lawsuit against Samsung came last April, when it accused Samsung of copying the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad.

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 43
Well, they'll win that one.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #3 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The latest suit also comes after it was revealed on Tuesday that Apple has offered settlements to both Samsung and Motorola in its patent infringement disputes. It was said that Apple has sought royalties of between $5 and $15 per Android-based handset sold by its rivals.

$15 on a $600 dollar phone is 2.5%.

Haven't we decided that is way too high?
post #4 of 43
I wonder if Apple will regret starting this patent war after all is said and done.
post #5 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

$15 on a $600 dollar phone is 2.5%.

Haven't we decided that is way too high?

High for FRAND patents which these are not.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #6 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

$15 on a $600 dollar phone is 2.5%.

Haven't we decided that is way too high?

Too low.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #7 of 43
. . .

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #8 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

High for FRAND patents which these are not.

This latest lawsuit alleges three Samsung utility patents are infringed and not standards-essential ones.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #9 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

$15 on a $600 dollar phone is 2.5%.

Haven't we decided that is way too high?

It was decided that 2.5% was too high for the Motorola FRAND patents. Apple is suing Samsung et al for patents which are not essential.
post #10 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

High for FRAND patents which these are not.

Why should essential stuff sell for less than optional stuff?
post #11 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Why should essential stuff sell for less than optional stuff?

Because the essential technologies are part of a technology standard which everyone must adhere to. Its not 'selling' for less, its essential and therefore everyone HAS to license it.

Therefore you cannot strong-arm or hold companies to ransom with these patents.
post #12 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

Because the essential technologies are part of a technology standard which everyone must adhere to. Its not 'selling' for less, its essential and therefore everyone HAS to license it.

Therefore you cannot strong-arm or hold companies to ransom with these patents.

The argument could be made that since they are essential to any company wanting to enter the smartphone market that they're more valuable than ones that can perhaps easily be engineered around.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #13 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by realitycheck69 View Post

I wonder if Apple will regret starting this patent war after all is said and done.

The short answer is "No"
rfrmac
Reply
rfrmac
Reply
post #14 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

Because the essential technologies are part of a technology standard which everyone must adhere to. Its not 'selling' for less, its essential and therefore everyone HAS to license it.

Therefore you cannot strong-arm or hold companies to ransom with these patents.

Also you can't hold certain companies to a higher amount. THat was one of the contentions with the Moto deal. Sure they were asking the same percent from everyone but it was based off the retail price of the amount which for Apple is like 4 times higher than the others, meaning Apple was paying a much higher amount, which has been argued as not Fair or Reasonable and certainly not Non-Discriminatory.

With non essential patents you can ask whatever you want or even refuse to license. Apple has done this with a ton of iPhone and iPad patents. The items in question are part of how they keep these devices unique and so the answer is no.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #15 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The suit filed in a court in Seoul alleges that Apple's latest smartphone and its second-generation tablet infringe on patents related to displaying data, the user interface, and short text messages, according to Reuters.

Given these areas something tells me that Apple will be able to show that they aren't using the tech in Samsung's patents but in fact are using tech based on internal prior art. and/or will be able to make a claim that Samsung's patents are too broad and Apple improved the art of those patents so much they created a new and patentable item and thus there is no claimable violation of the originals

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #16 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The argument could be made that since they are essential to any company wanting to enter the smartphone market that they're more valuable than ones that can perhaps easily be engineered around.

Except that the patent holders offered them as standard essential and must oblige by the FRAND terms.
post #17 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The argument could be made that since they are essential to any company wanting to enter the smartphone market that they're more valuable than ones that can perhaps easily be engineered around.

Correct. How does one strongarm the buyer with something that they don't really need to have?

The thought that a discretionary purchase has greater price elasticity than an essential purchase seems backwards to me.

For example, bread and milk will be purchased even when the price goes way up. But ice cream? The consumer might well skip it or substitute popsicles.
post #18 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Except that the patent holders offered them as standard essential and must oblige by the FRAND terms.

And do FRAND terms require that their IP be given away for a pittance? No, in fact there is no such thing as specific "FRAND terms" that apply across the board. The requirements, obligations, rates and royalty basis vary from agency to agency. Even some of those suggest the rules to follow rather than make them a requirement.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #19 of 43
There are literally thousands of patents entrained in any modern electronic device, which is why a FRAND system is necessary. These are for the essential technologies, not the non-essential ones like gestures etc. Individuals and companies agree to FRAND terms so that at least they get some return on patents buried deep inside the various technologies employed.

As a corollary, Robert Goddard, the father of the modern liquid fueled rocket, held about 200 patents central to the workings of these rockets. The numbers can be huge.

All the best.
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #20 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The argument could be made that since they are essential to any company wanting to enter the smartphone market that they're more valuable than ones that can perhaps easily be engineered around.

Patented technologies are used in standards when the owner of the patent is willing to license the technology on fair terms. If using a technology as part of a standard would mean that the owner could put the squeeze on anyone entering a market, that technology would not be used as part of the standard. Apple technologies were used as part of the MP4 standard, as I recall, and we don't see lawsuits or hear a lot of bitching and moaning about Apple being unfair with it.
post #21 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Also you can't hold certain companies to a higher amount. THat was one of the contentions with the Moto deal. Sure they were asking the same percent from everyone but it was based off the retail price of the amount which for Apple is like 4 times higher than the others, meaning Apple was paying a much higher amount, which has been argued as not Fair or Reasonable and certainly not Non-Discriminatory.

That might be the implied argument that FOSSPatents was making. If you read what he 's said more carefully he's not saying that Motorola's 2.25% of the device selling price is specifically unfair. Instead he's saying he personally think that the traditional communications royalty basis being the finished device price isn't sustainable. If you misunderstand because of the way he worded his argument, that's not really his fault of course. He also never mentions that the phone manufacturers went thru the same motions a few years ago when standards transitioned from 2G to 3G. There were some then that estimated the 3G royalties to be as much as 40% of the finished device price.

As for holding different companies to different amounts, here's the way it's been done and what Apple doesn't want to go along with: If you have IP to trade, they'll reduce your out-of-pocket expense. Give value and get value. The way I read it Apple doesn't want to give up anything of their own, but still wants the lower royalty rates that companies contributing IP get. IMHO there's some dishonest arguments being made by neglecting to mention a few pertinent facts.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #22 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The argument could be made that since they are essential to any company wanting to enter the smartphone market that they're more valuable than ones that can perhaps easily be engineered around.

The argument could be made that standards-essential patents are only valuable because they were declared part of a standard.

Reasonable licensing terms protect a company from antitrust concerns, as by holding a standards essential patent they are in effect controlling the gateway to an entire industry. Whether it makes sense to your or not is beside the point.
post #23 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by williamh View Post

Patented technologies are used in standards when the owner of the patent is willing to license the technology on fair terms. If using a technology as part of a standard would mean that the owner could put the squeeze on anyone entering a market, that technology would not be used as part of the standard. Apple technologies were used as part of the MP4 standard, as I recall, and we don't see lawsuits or hear a lot of bitching and moaning about Apple being unfair with it.

You heard lot of bitching and moaning about Qualcomm's 5% (some claimed they were wanting upwards of 7%) standards-essential royalties on the selling price of every 3G CDMA phone not all that long ago, and that was just Qualcomm. Several other companies were also taking a cut, including Moto at their traditional 2.25%. Qualcomm was just the biggest pig.
http://www.sramanamitra.com/2007/05/...comm-addendum/

This simply proves the point I made earlier that requirements vary from standard to standard.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #24 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

The argument could be made that standards-essential patents are only valuable because they were declared part of a standard.

Reasonable licensing terms protect a company from antitrust concerns, as by holding a standards essential patent they are in effect controlling the gateway to an entire industry. Whether it makes sense to your or not is beside the point.

So how much specifically are they allowed to charge on a percentage basis? What is the upper limit? Is Qualcomm's current 3.25% illegal? If not, how high can they go legally?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #25 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by realitycheck69 View Post

i wonder if apple will regret starting this patent war after all is said and done.

nope.
post #26 of 43
If Steve were alive he would bury Samsux. Samsux can't come up with original designs of their own so they simply ape whatever creations Apple comes up with. I am tired of Samsux.
post #27 of 43
I have to ask myself... how much is Apple’s innovation driving what Samsung now sells? And how much is Samsung innovation driving what Apple now sells?

If Samsung had never existed, what would the iPad and iPhone be like today? (Pretty similar.)

If Apple had never existed, what would Samsung’s products be like today?

Or... what if both companies existed, and Samsung did cool and innovative things of their own without such blatant copying of Apple? Microsoft has done that, and many tablet/phone designs look nothing like Apple’s. It CAN be done, and then Samsung would be bringing us real choice in the market. “Real Apple” vs. “attempted rip-off Apple” isn’t the kind of choice or “freedom” I value.
post #28 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

I have to ask myself... how much is Apples innovation driving what Samsung now sells? And how much is Samsung innovation driving what Apple now sells?

If Samsung had never existed, what would the iPad and iPhone be like today? (Pretty similar.)

If Apple had never existed, what would Samsungs products be like today?

Or... what if both companies existed, and Samsung did cool and innovative things of their own without such blatant copying of Apple? Microsoft has done that, and many tablet/phone designs look nothing like Apples. It CAN be done, and then Samsung would be bringing us real choice in the market. Real Apple vs. attempted rip-off Apple isnt the kind of choice or freedom I value.

I give you, the Samsung Note, bringing the stylus back to touch screens in case we're nostalgic for the 90's.

iPhone 5 64GB, iPhone 4S 16GB, mid-2011 iMac, Apple TV 2nd Gen, iPod Nano

Reply

iPhone 5 64GB, iPhone 4S 16GB, mid-2011 iMac, Apple TV 2nd Gen, iPod Nano

Reply
post #29 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So how much specifically are they allowed to charge on a percentage basis? What is the upper limit? Is Qualcomm's current 3.25% illegal? If not, how high can they go legally?

Keep in mind, you're quoting *published rates* which are often the initial offer made; rates are then negotiated down, offset with other standards essential patents, etc. Typically, a player like Apple would make an offer and go from there.

Courts are the ones that decide what is reasonable if no agreement can be reached, especially when other motives are likely at play, like Moto and Samsung possibly wanting to hurt a huge rival.
post #30 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

Keep in mind, you're quoting *published rates* which are often the initial offer made; rates are then negotiated down, offset with other standards essential patents, etc. Typically, a player like Apple would make an offer and go from there.

If you've got nothing you're willing to trade, why should you get a better rate than the published one? Isn't FRAND licensing meant to avoid just that issue of some getting a better rate (or a higher one) simply because of who they are?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #31 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

I have to ask myself... how much is Apple’s innovation driving what Samsung now sells? And how much is Samsung innovation driving what Apple now sells?

If Samsung had never existed, what would the iPad and iPhone be like today? (Pretty similar.)

If Apple had never existed, what would Samsung’s products be like today?

Or... what if both companies existed, and Samsung did cool and innovative things of their own without such blatant copying of Apple? Microsoft has done that, and many tablet/phone designs look nothing like Apple’s. It CAN be done, and then Samsung would be bringing us real choice in the market. “Real Apple” vs. “attempted rip-off Apple” isn’t the kind of choice or “freedom” I value.

Yeah like that blatant copy Samsung made with the phone projector. Everyone knows they got that from the iphone that had the projector in it.

And the Super AMOLED plus display....taken straight from the iphone

Front facing camera....never existed before iphone.

Pressure sensitive stylus....iphone did it

Notification drop down menu.....STOLEN from the iphone

Multitasking.....now this really gets me ANGRY the way Samsung stole this from the iphone which HAD IT FIRST.

Samsung...so annoying. Apple puts 4g in their phones, here comes samsung to copy them. Apple puts face unlock in their phones, here comes samsung to copy them. Everyone knows Samsung phones had no voice commands before siri came on the scene.

I mean, WHEN WILL IT STOP!! I hope their Galaxy beam fails. Their projector cant measure up to the quality of the one in the iphone.
post #32 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

post



Actually, I'm 100% certain you're not. I just wanted to finally get to use this image.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #33 of 43
Innovation creates jobs, advances technology and makes life better for everyone. Apple has a long history of inovation. Samsung can't innovate so they rip off Apple's products and litigate. Samsung is trying to destroy Apple. Just remember that the next time you out shopping.
post #34 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightymike View Post

Innovation creates jobs, advances technology and makes life better for everyone. Apple has a long history of inovation. Samsung can't innovate so they rip off Apple's products and litigate. Samsung is trying to destroy Apple. Just remember that the next time you out shopping.

Actually, Samsung just created a tonload of jobs in austin texas. AMERICAN JOBS. They didn't go build another factory in China like I'm willing to bet Apple would have loved them to do.

And when you hear of a company that is NOT out to destroy its competitor, let me know.

Not to mention Samsung creates thousands of jobs worldwide through their construction business. They are actually building a plant at the refinery that I work at right now. Using LOCAL labor. Don't see Apple in my country, not even a non-unionised apple store.

And what's this about not innovating. Patents granted to apple last year....app 700
Patents granted to Samsung last year.....app 4500

And lets not forget how many ESSENTIAL patents Samsung owns meaning that had it not been for Samsung INNOVATION, would we have been as far advanced in terms of phone capability, voice capability, 2g, 3g, 4g as we are? Samsung did tons of reasearch and innovation to improve the way mobile phones operate on networks and the way data is transferred. Apple on the other hand made it possible to slide a box to unlock your screen....which is great, but c'mon. Lets not make it look like Samsung does nothing.
post #35 of 43
Sooooo, if Samsung is so great why are they ripping off Apple's designs?
post #36 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightymike View Post

Sooooo, if Samsung is so great why are they ripping off Apple's designs?

Don't try to reason with him; he's a, how you say, troll.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #37 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightymike View Post

Sooooo, if Samsung is so great why are they ripping off Apple's designs?

There is a difference between copying someone versus being competitive.

Copying someone = doing the EXACT same thing your competitor is doing with NOTHING new.

Competition = giving SIMILAR form factor but with ADDITIONAL features.


You wouldnt put a document in a copier and expect to get something "similar" to it now would you? You would want an EXACT copy of it no?

Just like the copier example, put the iPad onto a copy machine and you would NOT get the Galaxy Tab as its output.

So DONT call the Galaxy Tab a "copy".

"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 #38 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

I have to ask myself... how much is Apple’s innovation driving what Samsung now sells? And how much is Samsung innovation driving what Apple now sells?

Samsung has been in the mobile phone business for at least a full decade longer than Apple, probably not much. Apple's true innovation is in *marketing* and *packaging*.

Quote:
If Samsung had never existed, what would the iPad and iPhone be like today? (Pretty similar.)

Not sure, but without LG Prada? Nah.

Quote:
If Apple had never existed, what would Samsung’s products be like today?

Or... what if both companies existed, and Samsung did cool and innovative things of their own without such blatant copying of Apple? Microsoft has done that, and many tablet/phone designs look nothing like Apple’s. It CAN be done, and then Samsung would be bringing us real choice in the market. “Real Apple” vs. “attempted rip-off Apple” isn’t the kind of choice or “freedom” I value.

Probably like BlackBerry. Samsung actually had a smartphone called BlackJack a couple of years back (and, of course, RIM sued). If LG Prada had succeeded, Samsung would have designed phones around Prada.

The way I see it, the problem isn't so much that Samsung isn't innovative - Samsung is quite well known for technology (likewise its huge patent portfolio, 100,000+ worldwide or 30,000+ US alone) and industrial designs - it's just that Samsung just doesn't know how to market new products. Samsung reminds me of early South Korean mp3 player companies that languished in the US market like iRiver.

I think that's also why, unlike Apple's focused approach, Samsung takes a wide shot-gun approach to everything. I think that explains why there are no fewer than 12 variations of Samsung Galaxy in the market now. Let's throw everything at it, and see what sticks.
post #39 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

$15 on a $600 dollar phone is 2.5%.

Haven't we decided that is way too high?

Funny that with all your bloviating against Apple, you still don't know the difference between standards-essential patents and normal patents.
post #40 of 43
Samsung's business strategy is to copy Apple and after being sued, litigate down to what the courts with accept. it's a money maker if you don't loose Apple's $8 billion dollar screen business and customers don't boycott Samsung's products, not to mention being branded a cheap copy machine.

Samsung feels justified because Apple will bury their TV business when the Apple large screen TVs reach the market. But that rationale doesn't fly in the courts.

Bye Bye Samsuck.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung files new patent infringement suit against Apple in South Korea