or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung looks to add 4th-gen iPad, iPad mini to upcoming patent infringement suit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung looks to add 4th-gen iPad, iPad mini to upcoming patent infringement suit

post #1 of 30
Thread Starter 
Samsung on Wednesday filed a motion to include Apple's fourth-generation iPad and iPad mini in its running list of iOS devices that allegedly infringe on certain wireless patents, tacking on even more product claims to be heard in an upcoming patent lawsuit.

iPad mini


First spotted by The Verge, Samsung's motion to amend its original filing is yet another counterclaim in Apple's upcoming Galaxy Nexus case in which both companies are asserting multiple patent claims. The suit will be heard by the same court as the Apple v. Samsung patent trial, which ended in a $1.05 billion win for Apple in August.

Much like Samsung's successful October motion to add Apple's newest iPhone 5 to the suit, the new iPad and iPad mini request is based on the alleged infringement of two UMTS wireless technologies and a number of "feature patents" used in both the cellular-enabled and Wi-Fi only versions of the mid-size tablet.

In the filing, Samsung also sought to clarify whether it correctly asserted U.S. Patent No. 7,672,470 against three previous generations of Apple's iPod touch, adding that it would like to do so if the original contention was improper. The patent covers volume control on a portable music player.

For its part, Apple has also augmented claims against Samsung, most recently setting its sights on the Galaxy Note 10.1 and the Galaxy-specific build of Google's Jelly Bean operating system. Previously, Apple added Samsung's flagship Galaxy S III smartphone as well as the Galaxy Note "phablet" to the pending case.

The suit is scheduled to kick off sometime in 2014.

post #2 of 30

Why not add the Lisa as well.  Heck lets just sue apple for the whole kitchen sink.  Next law suit will be over the new space ship building being erected.  Samsung plans to sue apple for building round structures making it impossible to walk around the corner.  Sheesh.

An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #3 of 30
Samsung sounds like crooks.. They are trying to rip off apple and get away with it. Apple needs to completely get rid of having any business with them at all
post #4 of 30

I thought Samsung's UMTS wireless technologies patents were declared to be exhausted at the end of the previous trial...??

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #5 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerk36 View Post

Why not add the Lisa as well.  Heck lets just sue apple for the whole kitchen sink.  Next law suit will be over the new space ship building being erected.  Samsung plans to sue apple for building round structures making it impossible to walk around the corner.  Sheesh.

If it's something functional related to wireless service or whatever, it's obvious whether a new product uses it. You're just posting strawman arguments at this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pianopoet View Post

Samsung sounds like crooks.. They are trying to rip off apple and get away with it. Apple needs to completely get rid of having any business with them at all

Neither company is known for their excellent business practices. Remember Apple and the anti-poaching agreements? You should stop worrying about what corporations do to each other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

I thought Samsung's UMTS wireless technologies patents were declared to be exhausted at the end of the previous trial...??


It looks like it in the verdict. Maybe they're different patents? I haven't kept track of all of the claims. Sometimes it's interesting to read about them.

post #6 of 30

1000

 

I love all the different parallels in this image.

post #7 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

If it's something functional related to wireless service or whatever, it's obvious whether a new product uses it. You're just posting strawman arguments at this point.

Neither company is known for their excellent business practices. Remember Apple and the anti-poaching agreements? You should stop worrying about what corporations do to each other.


It looks like it in the verdict. Maybe they're different patents? I haven't kept track of all of the claims. Sometimes it's interesting to read about them.

Lets give the straw man to samsung he needs a brain.

An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #8 of 30
The ``Throw it all the wall and see what sticks'' approach will implode leaving a big rift within Samsung.
post #9 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

If it's something functional related to wireless service or whatever, it's obvious whether a new product uses it. You're just posting strawman arguments at this point.

Neither company is known for their excellent business practices. Remember Apple and the anti-poaching agreements? You should stop worrying about what corporations do to each other.


It looks like it in the verdict. Maybe they're different patents? I haven't kept track of all of the claims. Sometimes it's interesting to read about them.

Apple may not be as pristine as some would like, but they didn't create monopolistic contracts with OEMs to force them to not offer other OSs like Microsoft.

 

What Samsung is claiming are BULLSHIT, from what i saw.  It sends audio through a set of headphones when a set of headphones are connected and when they aren't, they play audio through speakers?  These are not patentable.  Computers that have headphone jacks did this back when they started to put audio outputs on computers over 20 years ago.  Nothing patentable as far as I can see.  Isn't Apple buying the audio codec chip from another company?  is it against the law to buy a audio codec chip and put it in a device?

 

Samsung are just REAL petty with some of the claims that i am looking at.  I didn't read the entire document, but from what I did read, it looked like a bunch of BULLSHIT.  Samsung to me is a bunch of companies put together with questionable motives.  Their component divisions have been caught several times with price fixing, and when then they turn around and copy their component customer's products to make money whether it's got their name on it or not.  REALLY unethical business practices.    Personally, I wonder if the US should help the South Koreans against the North Koreans..  Samsung needs to decide if they want to be a component supplier or not.  Unfortunately the Korean Government is too stupid to shut down Samsung's unethical conflict of interest business practices.

 

Microsoft is essentially now doing basically the same thing.  First they are just an OS and app developer and since their OEM customers can't seem to get enough market share in the smartphone and tablet market, now MIcrosoft is making the products themselves along with making money from the licenses of their OS from their OEM.

post #10 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Samsung to me is a bunch of companies put together with questionable motives.  Their component divisions have been caught several times with price fixing, and when then they turn around and copy their component customer's products to make money whether it's got their name on it or not.  REALLY unethical business practices.

And when that price fixing issue was being investigated, Samsung just rattled on others so they would get full immunity:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1214_en.htm?locale=de
Send from my iPhone. Excuse brevity and auto-corrupt.
Reply
Send from my iPhone. Excuse brevity and auto-corrupt.
Reply
post #11 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

And when that price fixing issue was being investigated, Samsung just rattled on others so they would get full immunity:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1214_en.htm?locale=de

Off topic but it made me think of this....

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #12 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


And when that price fixing issue was being investigated, Samsung just rattled on others so they would get full immunity:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1214_en.htm?locale=de

 

why?  That's what American company Micron did to avoid price-fixing charges a few years back.  That's perfectly legit.  Boy, Samsung learns quick from their American competitors. 


Edited by tooltalk - 11/22/12 at 7:40am
post #13 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Apple may not be as pristine as some would like, but they didn't create monopolistic contracts with OEMs to force them to not offer other OSs like Microsoft.

 

What Samsung is claiming are BULLSHIT, from what i saw.  It sends audio through a set of headphones when a set of headphones are connected and when they aren't, they play audio through speakers?  These are not patentable.  Computers that have headphone jacks did this back when they started to put audio outputs on computers over 20 years ago.  Nothing patentable as far as I can see.  Isn't Apple buying the audio codec chip from another company?  is it against the law to buy a audio codec chip and put it in a device?

 

Samsung are just REAL petty with some of the claims that i am looking at.  I didn't read the entire document, but from what I did read, it looked like a bunch of BULLSHIT.  Samsung to me is a bunch of companies put together with questionable motives.  Their component divisions have been caught several times with price fixing, and when then they turn around and copy their component customer's products to make money whether it's got their name on it or not.  REALLY unethical business practices.    Personally, I wonder if the US should help the South Koreans against the North Koreans..  Samsung needs to decide if they want to be a component supplier or not.  Unfortunately the Korean Government is too stupid to shut down Samsung's unethical conflict of interest business practices.

 

Microsoft is essentially now doing basically the same thing.  First they are just an OS and app developer and since their OEM customers can't seem to get enough market share in the smartphone and tablet market, now MIcrosoft is making the products themselves along with making money from the licenses of their OS from their OEM.

 

two wrongs make a right..  We are talking about Samsung vs. Apple, not Apple vs Microsoft - though I see Apple more in common with Microsoft than Samsung with Microsoft.

 

Yeah, sure.  You just read some headlines and you know everything about Samsung. LOL.

post #14 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

 

It looks like it in the verdict. Maybe they're different patents? I haven't kept track of all of the claims. Sometimes it's interesting to read about them.

 

It's very possibly the same patents. However lawsuits, like patents, are very specific. In that I mean that the suit can only look at the specific items mentioned in the suit, not other things that might be included in the same deal or use the same chips in another identical deal. 

 

That said, if these new items are in the same chip purchasing deal or Apple can produce an identical deal for the chips used in these new products they may be able to get those claims dismissed via a motion using the previous suit as precedent to show that the 'exhaustion' was valid and covered all needed licenses and this is an identical agreement for identical chips etc. 

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 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

 

two wrongs make a right..  We are talking about Samsung vs. Apple, not Apple vs Microsoft - though I see Apple more in common with Microsoft than Samsung with Microsoft.

 

Yeah, sure.  You just read some headlines and you know everything about Samsung. LOL.

We know enough to see them as the most corrupt and disgusting company on earth.

post #16 of 30
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post
We know enough to see them as the most corrupt and disgusting company on earth.

 

Well, one of.

post #17 of 30
I suggest Apple should immediately launch a 4.x and 5.x inch iPhone display to kill Shamesuck which is living in the gap that Apple gives it .

Shamesuck is too shame not to copy iPhone design and still barks without Shame !!!

This is the only way to make Shamesuck shut up !!!
post #18 of 30

"Duh!" An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. At this rate, innovation will take a beating.

post #19 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post



I love all the different parallels in this image.

and yes great artists steal, good artists copy. and yes Apple Inc. Is a great artist, and owns their ideas they come up with, problem for SAMSUNG is that they are only a good artist, and are using the courts to make them a great artist.


BTW, tallestskil, where is the image credit?... going under the "fair use" copyright thing right?... but in any case how about crediting the source?.. (movie, image, etc)

.. so you are a great artist which is evident thought the lack credit of the original image.../sarcasm.
post #20 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

1000

 

I love all the different parallels in this image.

 

Except Apple isn't a colossal asshole like Tony Stark and makes products that actually help people instead of kill them.  

 

This is a picture of two war mongering assholes trying to out-asshole each other.  I would argue that in the Samsung v. Apple debate, Apple actually has done no wrong and is closer to a humble purveyor of pots and pans than it is to an egomaniacal, money-grubbing killer like Stark.  

post #21 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Except Apple isn't a colossal asshole like Tony Stark and makes products that actually help people instead of kill them.  

This is a picture of two war mongering assholes trying to out-asshole each other.  I would argue that in the Samsung v. Apple debate, Apple actually has done no wrong and is closer to a humble purveyor of pots and pans than it is to an egomaniacal, money-grubbing killer like Stark.  

I seem to recall the films noting that Tony Stark thought he was making weapons to protect Americans and when he found out his company was double-dealing and selling those very weapons to terrorists he reduced that part of his company which is why Obadiah Stane decided to take the Arc Reactor from Tony's chest in that scene.

Now, maybe I'm missing something but that seems to me the opposite of Tony trying to be a more out-assholing, money-grubbing killer-warmonger than Obadiah.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #22 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I seem to recall the films noting that Tony Stark thought he was making weapons to protect Americans and when he found out his company was double-dealing and selling those very weapons to terrorists he reduced that part of his company which is why Obadiah Stane decided to take the Arc Reactor from Tony's chest in that scene.
Now, maybe I'm missing something but that seems to me the opposite of Tony trying to be a more out-assholing, money-grubbing killer-warmonger than Obadiah.

Correct. Stark was cocky and arrogant, but when he discovered his weapons were being used to create wars instead of as a deterrence to War Iron Man was born beyond the device to free him from capture.

The sadistic a-hole was his father's partner working off the books and outside Stark's purview [easy enough when you're busy designing at home and entertaining a lavish life style.
post #23 of 30
Originally Posted by haar View Post
and yes great artists steal, good artists copy. and yes Apple Inc. Is a great artist, and owns their ideas they come up with, problem for SAMSUNG is that they are only a good artist, and are using the courts to make them a great artist.
BTW, tallestskil, where is the image credit?... going under the "fair use" copyright thing right?... but in any case how about crediting the source?.. (movie, image, etc)
.. so you are a great artist which is evident thought the lack credit of the original image.../sarcasm.

 

What is the purpose of this post other than try (fail) to spin your erroneous conclusion on me?


Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post
Except Apple isn't a colossal asshole like Tony Stark and makes products that actually help people instead of kill them. 
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
I seem to recall the films noting that Tony Stark thought he was making weapons to protect Americans and when he found out his company was double-dealing and selling those very weapons to terrorists he reduced that part of his company which is why Obadiah Stane decided to take the Arc Reactor from Tony's chest in that scene.

 

Right, it's more within the context of just what's in the image. Here you have Stark (Jobs), creator and protector of miniaturized fusion (the iPhone), and along comes Stane (Samsung) and literally (and figuratively) rips his heart right out of his chest.

post #24 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpadhiyar View Post

"Duh!" An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. At this rate, innovation will take a beating.

 

Nonsense - stealing and copying is not innovation.

post #25 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

Nonsense - stealing and copying is not innovation.

Have you seen Oceans 11? That was a very innovative heist.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #26 of 30
Samsung has been ordered to pay $1.05 Billion in damages to Apple. In addition, they will lose the processor contract in 2014 from Apple, which is a $4 billion dollar opportunity, and and roughly 4% of their annual business. This failure to find a common road with Apple, has also given TSMC the desire and ability to open a large manufacturing plant in the US, not only to service Apple, but its other customers as well. This will up the ante in terms of competition against Samsung, and could cost them even more down the road in lost opportunity. This is just the beginning. If I were a Samsung shareholder, I'd want Jong-kyun's head on a stick.
post #27 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmvsm View Post

Samsung has been ordered to pay $1.05 Billion in damages to Apple. In addition, they will lose the processor contract in 2014 from Apple, which is a $4 billion dollar opportunity, and and roughly 4% of their annual business. This failure to find a common road with Apple, has also given TSMC the desire and ability to open a large manufacturing plant in the US, not only to service Apple, but its other customers as well. This will up the ante in terms of competition against Samsung, and could cost them even more down the road in lost opportunity. This is just the beginning. If I were a Samsung shareholder, I'd want Jong-kyun's head on a stick.

I agree with that but I'd add a couple things. By 2014 (not to mention moving forward) Apple's need for their custom ASIC will have grown considerably which would mean even more revenue and profit for Samsung. That said, Samsung has shown itself to be many things, good and bad, but one very good thing about them has been their ability to be a fast, efficient foundry with great yields within a specific performance and power envelope. That is something that Samsung has been top dog and I'm not sure TMSC can figure out in just over a year.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #28 of 30
Chastise Samsung if you will. Their strategy is working extremely well. That's what matters most in business.
post #29 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Chastise Samsung if you will. Their strategy is working extremely well. That's what matters most in business.


Strategy? Oh, you mean the ones that will cost Samsung billions in future revenue? Yeah, great strategy. It would be one thing if there was a another customer like Apple to take its place, but they are irreplaceable in this current market. That's $4 billion in lost revenue, not including the billion they have to pay in damages. If you lost 4% of your company's revenue in a two year swing, you'd be employed about as long as it took you to reach the exit. As I said before, they've also given other companies the ability to get a production foothold, that may not bite them in the short run, as they learn to ramp up, but it most likely will in the long run. Furthermore, other future costs against Samsung may come in the form of companies not wanting to do business with them for fear of patent violations and competitive litigation. If they are willing to do it to a giant like Apple, then why not piss on the little guy when they get the opportunity? So, if this sounds like a good strategy to you, then I certainly wouldn't want you across the company boardroom from me carving out future plans for growth.

post #30 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmvsm View Post


Strategy? Oh, you mean the ones that will cost Samsung billions in future revenue? Yeah, great strategy. It would be one thing if there was a another customer like Apple to take its place, but they are irreplaceable in this current market. That's $4 billion in lost revenue, not including the billion they have to pay in damages.

The suggestion that this is a 100% loss is just plain silly, and I think you already knew that. It's not like they're going to keep these facilities up and running but unused for several consecutive quarters. If they are growing fast enough, the capacity will be used for something as it would likely take less time to re-purpose lines than it would to build new facilities. It's questionable whether Samsung could hold onto Apple indefinitely regardless of litigation. They may try to distance themselves from competitors. If LG became a real threat, we'd just read about more battles.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung looks to add 4th-gen iPad, iPad mini to upcoming patent infringement suit