Does this mean Samsung feels their counter suit case isn't as strong as Apple's copycat case?
Considering that Samsung patent profolio is many times thicker than Apple's tiny user interface design patents, I doubt it. Samsung is #2 in patents granted in US last year (or 27,000+ so far) and has the largest 3G / wireless porfolio.
Considering that Samsung patent profolio is many times thicker than Apple's tiny user interface design patents, I doubt it. Samsung is #2 in patents granted in US last year (or 27,000+ so far) and has the largest 3G / wireless porfolio.
The number of patents has no barring as the validity of your patents in a specific case so your argument that Samsung's position is many times stronger holds no water, and that's even before we consider the diversity of Samsung Group (삼성그룹 / Samseong Geurup / sam'sʌŋ gɯ'ɾup) compared to Apple in relation to relevant patents that would deal solely with handheld devices.
I know I'm going to look pedantic posting this, but, as an Australian legal practitioner, I want to point out a technical inaccuracy in the original article:
Stephen Burley is not an attorney. He is a barrister. The only attorneys we have in Australia are:
1. Patent Attorneys, who are specialist solicitors who deal with patent registration; and
2. Attorneys, who are individuals who act on behalf of someone who is, in some way, incapacitated (as in, people who hold Power of Attorney for someone else).
Stephen Burley is a barrister -- a lawyers who specialises in advocacy. For those from countries without split legal professions, we in Australia (along with the UK, and various other Commonwealth countries) have a split profession, where we have solicitors, who do the everyday legal work, like transactional law (contracts, etc.) and litigation (but generally not the actual talking in court), and we have barristers, who do nothing but advocacy (they do the talking at court, and also do things like mediation). Solicitors tend to work in firms (law firms, like in the US), whereas barristers are required by law to work as individuals.
Clients don't directly retain/instruct barristers. Clients instruct solicitors. Solicitors, in turn, brief barristers when they're needed.
Furthermore, Stephen Burley is Senior Counsel (also referred to as "a silk", because they wear silk robes in court), an honorary title bestowed on the top barristers by the Supreme Courts of the states and territories.** As such, it is actually rather disrespectful to refer to the man as Stephen Burley. He should be referred to as Stephen Burley SC.
** And which is a virtual licence to seriously jack up prices. I don't know how much barristers charge in Sydney, and certainly not what commercial barristers charge. I work in family law in Melbourne. The very good family barristers who are not Senior Counsel charge about $3,500 per day. The family silks in Melbourne charge $7,700 per day.
The "story" posted by AI is not a story, it's an announcement, devoid of facts, except for one, the innocuous "Samsung has offered Apple a mystery deal" lead.
Even the headline "Samsung offers Apple a deal to allow Galaxy Tab 10.1 launch in Australia " is misleading, as there is NO DEAL.
No deal - no story.
But my question was not directed to the over-caffeinated, self-righteous posters seen here but rather to the AI staff itself. Perhaps I should of dumbed it down for everyone, as in. "Where's the beef?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
That right there was so self indulgent and misapplied that even the baby sees the error of your ways.
It's not a deal because it's not accepted? You just created a new logic that singularly prevents the rest of humanities history from ever consummating a deal because you can't have one unless it's offered, but unless it was offered you can't have a deal, so if there's no deal theres no offer possible, so no deal is possible.
You crack us up. As we can see the baby ruled. You earn the facepalm!
Sammy is already preparing for G S3 with Enoxy Dual/Quad core 1.5GHz, True 4G LTE, 16 MP camera for Verizon. They solved battery issues and all the aspects Apple claimed are totally erased. You will find more next week. You can keep discuss whether new iPhone 5 will have 3G HSPDA speed or not in Feb, 2012.
The number of patents has no barring as the validity of your patents in a specific case so your argument that Samsung's position is many times stronger holds no water, and that's even before we consider the diversity of Samsung Group (삼성그룹 / Samseong Geurup / sam'sʌŋ gɯ'ɾup) compared to Apple in relation to relevant patents that would deal solely with handheld devices.
No, probably not, but it's extremely unlikely that Samsung would use "weak", as opposed to "strong" patents - 3 3G patents out of Samsung Electronics's 27,000 patents granted in US - to fight Apple. As for my comments about the size of Samsung's patents, the point is to underscore Samsung's know-how and dominance in 3G technology.
Furthermore, Apple never denied that the patents are invalid (and had 3 months to raise alarm). Apple initially claimed that there was no infringement since iPhones use chips made by Infineon / Intel who had licensing agreement with Samsung. But when it turned out that their licensing agreement expired in 2009, Apple decided to accuse Samsung of rigging the 3G standard, rather than question the validity of the patents.
Also, Samsung Electronics, a division of Samsung conglomerate, owns some 27,000+ technology patents in US (4518 new patents granted in 2011 alone). And remember, Samsung has been making mobile devices for at least a full decade longer than Apple and still #1 in mobile devices units sold worldwide - vast majority of its patents are in fact in mobile technology (followed by memory).
If Sammy does not sell any parts to Apple, Apple cannot make new meaningful products for two years. For example, the reason new iPhone5 does not have 4G LTE is Sammy does not develop a LTE-CDMA integrated chip (Sammy will have that next year). If Windows 8 Mobile is somewhat decent OS, Sammy can dumb Apple now. They know they can beat Apple easily with 20 nano quad core 2G processor & memory (I hope you can understand the power 20-nano), new screen you can enjoy under the direct sunlight, 16 MP camera etc (Sammy only parts in 2012..World only. You cannot buy them from Japan or China and you have Not seen them in 2011). IF Windows 8 mobile is decent...at least close to previous Android, another PC-Mac case for textbooks And Sammy's cash safe is as deep as Apple, too. Two decent OSs will be enough for making that decision.
Since it was Apple that referred to them as "innovations that make the iPhone unique", why would you then argue that they weren't essential to what makes the iPhone, well, the iPhone.
NO matter how you'd like to spin it, Apple licensed at least some patents to Nokia that make the iPhone unique, thus essential to the iPhone experience. Far from Nokia "saving face" as you'd would claim, if anyone it was Apple trying to minimize what they gave up in the Nokia settlement by their very careful choice of words.
Google really, ought to hire shills who can actually reason correctly. There are any number of ways they might not be "essential to the iPhone experience." One obvious way is that Nokia got some old patents that represent technology that Apple was about to stop using -- i.e., they made it unique at the time of the statement but aren't essential going forward. You're trying really hard to put words in the mouths of Apple executives, but your spin is more than a bit wobbly.
Google really, ought to hire shills who can actually reason correctly. There are any number of ways they might not be "essential to the iPhone experience." One obvious way is that Nokia got some old patents that represent technology that Apple was about to stop using -- i.e., they made it unique at the time of the statement but aren't essential going forward. .
. . .Which would still make my post valid as of the time of settlement, so I don't know why you're arguing that my statement was obviously wrong.
If your guess was correct, then why even mention iPhone patents? Why do you you believe they were old and no longer useful going forward? If they held no value, then what was the purpose of Apple even mentioning that they licensed some of the patents that make the iPhone unique?
BTW, your "egregious troll" response doesn't add to the post. I've answered your silly charge more than once, and yet you mention the same "shill" accusation in nearly every response to me, even tho I try my best to remain respectful.
Most of the other regulars have been trying to avoid personal attacks recently, even apologizing for past misdeeds, and the forums have been better for it.
You don't offer a deal unless you know your hand is weak.
Bullshit. A deal is always better than letting some judge determine your fate. You tailor a deal to be exactly what both parties are willing to do. A judge's edict may be borked in any number of ways, some ways more inconvenient than others.
Both parties want to settle if mutually acceptable solutions can be found.
Similarly, the fact that Apple said that there would be some benefits to the deal doesn't mean that it's a good deal for Apple.
Let's say Samsung said "we propose that Apple drop the case and pay all of our legal expenses and immediately withdraw the iPad from the market to make room for the Tab". That would obviously be an insanely stupid thing for Apple to agree to, but it would still be true that there were some benefits to Apple (reduction of uncertainty and elimination of legal expenses). But that clearly doesn't make it a good deal.
Saying that there are some benefits is about as useless a statement as someone could make other than keeping their mouths shut.
Wow. Very good point. I gotta give it to you this time.
That's the best you can do? Mere semi-humorous personal attack with no reference to post content itself? Wow, your powers of debate are even more abysmal than I thought.
Comments
Does this mean Samsung feels their counter suit case isn't as strong as Apple's copycat case?
Considering that Samsung patent profolio is many times thicker than Apple's tiny user interface design patents, I doubt it. Samsung is #2 in patents granted in US last year (or 27,000+ so far) and has the largest 3G / wireless porfolio.
Considering that Samsung patent profolio is many times thicker than Apple's tiny user interface design patents, I doubt it. Samsung is #2 in patents granted in US last year (or 27,000+ so far) and has the largest 3G / wireless porfolio.
The number of patents has no barring as the validity of your patents in a specific case so your argument that Samsung's position is many times stronger holds no water, and that's even before we consider the diversity of Samsung Group (삼성그룹 / Samseong Geurup / sam'sʌŋ gɯ'ɾup) compared to Apple in relation to relevant patents that would deal solely with handheld devices.
Stephen Burley is not an attorney. He is a barrister. The only attorneys we have in Australia are:
1. Patent Attorneys, who are specialist solicitors who deal with patent registration; and
2. Attorneys, who are individuals who act on behalf of someone who is, in some way, incapacitated (as in, people who hold Power of Attorney for someone else).
Stephen Burley is a barrister -- a lawyers who specialises in advocacy. For those from countries without split legal professions, we in Australia (along with the UK, and various other Commonwealth countries) have a split profession, where we have solicitors, who do the everyday legal work, like transactional law (contracts, etc.) and litigation (but generally not the actual talking in court), and we have barristers, who do nothing but advocacy (they do the talking at court, and also do things like mediation). Solicitors tend to work in firms (law firms, like in the US), whereas barristers are required by law to work as individuals.
Clients don't directly retain/instruct barristers. Clients instruct solicitors. Solicitors, in turn, brief barristers when they're needed.
Furthermore, Stephen Burley is Senior Counsel (also referred to as "a silk", because they wear silk robes in court), an honorary title bestowed on the top barristers by the Supreme Courts of the states and territories.** As such, it is actually rather disrespectful to refer to the man as Stephen Burley. He should be referred to as Stephen Burley SC.
** And which is a virtual licence to seriously jack up prices. I don't know how much barristers charge in Sydney, and certainly not what commercial barristers charge. I work in family law in Melbourne. The very good family barristers who are not Senior Counsel charge about $3,500 per day. The family silks in Melbourne charge $7,700 per day.
Originally Posted by King of Beige View Post
The "story" posted by AI is not a story, it's an announcement, devoid of facts, except for one, the innocuous "Samsung has offered Apple a mystery deal" lead.
Even the headline "Samsung offers Apple a deal to allow Galaxy Tab 10.1 launch in Australia " is misleading, as there is NO DEAL.
No deal - no story.
But my question was not directed to the over-caffeinated, self-righteous posters seen here but rather to the AI staff itself. Perhaps I should of dumbed it down for everyone, as in. "Where's the beef?"
That right there was so self indulgent and misapplied that even the baby sees the error of your ways.
You crack us up. As we can see the baby ruled. You earn the facepalm!
Thats right, you must be...
Have you ever smacked you gavel while sliding down a barrister?
The word you were looking for is "bannister" I think? Unless you mean something totally different!!
Apple: Stop copying our stuff, please.
Samsung: What!? We're not copying! How dare you!
Apple: We just got your tablet banned in Germany and Australia because of how well you copied us.
Samsung:This is outrageous! We are going to kick you in the teeth!
Apple: Uhm... yeah, okay ya know... whatever.
Samsung: ... PLEAAASSSEEE let us sell the Galaxy in Australia! We'll give you shiny things!
Wow!
Samsung finally bowed to Apple after all the foolishness.
Actually not. See what will happen next week. Sammy is preparing for a big present to Apple. A big bomb.
The word you were looking for is "bannister" I think? Unless you mean something totally different!!
I think he was being ironical...
The number of patents has no barring as the validity of your patents in a specific case so your argument that Samsung's position is many times stronger holds no water, and that's even before we consider the diversity of Samsung Group (삼성그룹 / Samseong Geurup / sam'sʌŋ gɯ'ɾup) compared to Apple in relation to relevant patents that would deal solely with handheld devices.
No, probably not, but it's extremely unlikely that Samsung would use "weak", as opposed to "strong" patents - 3 3G patents out of Samsung Electronics's 27,000 patents granted in US - to fight Apple. As for my comments about the size of Samsung's patents, the point is to underscore Samsung's know-how and dominance in 3G technology.
Furthermore, Apple never denied that the patents are invalid (and had 3 months to raise alarm). Apple initially claimed that there was no infringement since iPhones use chips made by Infineon / Intel who had licensing agreement with Samsung. But when it turned out that their licensing agreement expired in 2009, Apple decided to accuse Samsung of rigging the 3G standard, rather than question the validity of the patents.
Also, Samsung Electronics, a division of Samsung conglomerate, owns some 27,000+ technology patents in US (4518 new patents granted in 2011 alone). And remember, Samsung has been making mobile devices for at least a full decade longer than Apple and still #1 in mobile devices units sold worldwide - vast majority of its patents are in fact in mobile technology (followed by memory).
Since it was Apple that referred to them as "innovations that make the iPhone unique", why would you then argue that they weren't essential to what makes the iPhone, well, the iPhone.
NO matter how you'd like to spin it, Apple licensed at least some patents to Nokia that make the iPhone unique, thus essential to the iPhone experience. Far from Nokia "saving face" as you'd would claim, if anyone it was Apple trying to minimize what they gave up in the Nokia settlement by their very careful choice of words.
Google really, ought to hire shills who can actually reason correctly. There are any number of ways they might not be "essential to the iPhone experience." One obvious way is that Nokia got some old patents that represent technology that Apple was about to stop using -- i.e., they made it unique at the time of the statement but aren't essential going forward. You're trying really hard to put words in the mouths of Apple executives, but your spin is more than a bit wobbly.
Google really, ought to hire shills who can actually reason correctly. There are any number of ways they might not be "essential to the iPhone experience." One obvious way is that Nokia got some old patents that represent technology that Apple was about to stop using -- i.e., they made it unique at the time of the statement but aren't essential going forward. .
. . .Which would still make my post valid as of the time of settlement, so I don't know why you're arguing that my statement was obviously wrong.
If your guess was correct, then why even mention iPhone patents? Why do you you believe they were old and no longer useful going forward? If they held no value, then what was the purpose of Apple even mentioning that they licensed some of the patents that make the iPhone unique?
BTW, your "egregious troll" response doesn't add to the post. I've answered your silly charge more than once, and yet you mention the same "shill" accusation in nearly every response to me, even tho I try my best to remain respectful.
Most of the other regulars have been trying to avoid personal attacks recently, even apologizing for past misdeeds, and the forums have been better for it.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=133031
You don't offer a deal unless you know your hand is weak.
Bullshit. A deal is always better than letting some judge determine your fate. You tailor a deal to be exactly what both parties are willing to do. A judge's edict may be borked in any number of ways, some ways more inconvenient than others.
Both parties want to settle if mutually acceptable solutions can be found.
That is true.
Similarly, the fact that Apple said that there would be some benefits to the deal doesn't mean that it's a good deal for Apple.
Let's say Samsung said "we propose that Apple drop the case and pay all of our legal expenses and immediately withdraw the iPad from the market to make room for the Tab". That would obviously be an insanely stupid thing for Apple to agree to, but it would still be true that there were some benefits to Apple (reduction of uncertainty and elimination of legal expenses). But that clearly doesn't make it a good deal.
Saying that there are some benefits is about as useless a statement as someone could make other than keeping their mouths shut.
Wow. Very good point. I gotta give it to you this time.
Thats right, you must be...
That's the best you can do? Mere semi-humorous personal attack with no reference to post content itself? Wow, your powers of debate are even more abysmal than I thought.