Apple warned Samsung of possible patent infringement in 2010 presentation

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Boris Teksler, Apple's director of patent licensing and strategy, said late CEO Steve Jobs and then-COO Tim Cook in 2010 warned Samsung that its smartphones may infringe on the iPhone's patents.

In the sixth day of the ongoing Apple v. Samsung patent trial, Teksler said he created a presentation outlining the patents Apple believed Samsung infringed upon with its smartphones, reports All Things D.

The presentation, which Teksler was quick to point out was made in Apple's Keynote, goes through a litany of U.S. patents held by Apple, including the infamous "rubber-banding" UI feature, e-mail threading and gesture heuristics. While the Korean company's implementation of the Android application stack appeared to take up much of the presentation, a few slides pointed out uncanny design and packaging similarities between the iPhone and Samsung's handsets.

?We didn?t understand how a trusted partner would build a copycat product like that,? Teksler said, pointing out the issue was serious enough that Jobs and Cook met with Samsung executives to discuss the matter.

According to his testimony, Teksler noted Apple held patents required for standards, core computing and those associated with what has become iOS. Apple is not interested in licensing the patents, Teksler said, because "it's what we don't wish to share and don't want others to mimic."

Apple Presentation to Samsung
Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents


Apple highlights in the presentation's second slide that "Samsung is a key Apple partner," however the company's choice to use Google's Android platform "undermines Samsung's greater relationship with Apple." The iPhone maker has long been at odds with Android, with Jobs famously quoted in his biography as saying the mobile OS was a "stolen product" and that he was "willing to go thermonuclear war" against it.

The presentation pulls no punches when describing Android, saying that it "makes extensive use of Apple intellectual property?without Apple's permission" and is "designed to lead companies to imitate the iPhone product design and strategy."



It was also discovered on Friday that Apple had in fact offered to license some of its patents to Samsung in 2010 for royalties equaling $30 per phone and $40 per tablet, though it is unclear if the two companies even discussed the deal.

Apple v. Samsung picks up on Monday with more testimony from Teksler who will be followed by Samsung's first witness.
«1345678

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 143
    xrcxxrcx Posts: 117member


    lol sooo many of these articles!

  • Reply 2 of 143
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    xrcx wrote: »
    lol sooo many of these articles!

    I do agree with whomever stated that this could diminish some of the "magic" behind's Apple's products by pulling the curtain back on so many of these aspects we had to previously speculate about.
  • Reply 3 of 143


    Holy Girdles, Batman!!! 


     


    First, you really need to go to the Apple Presentation and scroll through the pages... Before long you start to get the impression that with this piece of evidence Apple is moving beyond the "rectangle with rounded corners (where Samscum wants everyone to stay focused)....and beyond the copying of icons...and beyond the similarity of packaging and accessories.


     


    In this presentation Apple is taking full aim at the underlying Android OS and saying HERE TOO be Dragons!!


     


    Ladies and gents, Apple is saying that Samscum is infringing on Apple's IP by running Android on their devices! THIS is it!


     


    If Apple can win this case, and they have a better than equal shot at winning, then Google/Android is DOOMED. 


     


    If this goes through the way Apple is hoping, they can kill Android dead and move on to sue all Android phone and tablet makers. 


     


    One iOS to rule them all!!


     


    I LOVE it!!

  • Reply 4 of 143
    radjinradjin Posts: 165member
    [quote] I do agree with whomever stated that this could diminish some of the "magic" behind's Apple's products by pulling the curtain back on so many of these aspects we had to previously speculate about.[/quote]

    I don't think so, if anything it will bring even more excitement around Apple, because if people listen to the testamonys, they will see how passionate these people are about their products. People will want them even more.
  • Reply 5 of 143
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    radjin wrote: »
    I don't think so, if anything it will bring even more excitement around Apple, because if people listen to the testamonys, they will see how passionate these people are about their products. People will want them even more.

    Nice counter-arugment. Kudos!
  • Reply 6 of 143

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post


    Holy Girdles, Batman!!! 


     


    First, you really need to go to the Apple Presentation and scroll through the pages... Before long you start to get the impression that with this piece of evidence Apple is moving beyond the "rectangle with rounded corners (where Samscum wants everyone to stay focused)....and beyond the copying of icons...and beyond the similarity of packaging and accessories.


     


    In this presentation Apple is taking full aim at the underlying Android OS and saying HERE TOO be Dragons!!


     


    Ladies and gents, Apple is saying that Samscum is infringing on Apple's IP by running Android on their devices! THIS is it!


     


    If Apple can win this case, and they have a better than equal shot at winning, then Google/Android is DOOMED. 


     


    If this goes through the way Apple is hoping, they can kill Android dead and move on to sue all Android phone and tablet makers. 


     


    One iOS to rule them all!!


     


    I LOVE it!!



     


    While I totally despise Android, I do not think it's in anyone's best interest to have it vanish... Apple and consumers would be better served with Android sticking around and Google paying up for the IP they have stolen.

  • Reply 7 of 143

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Market_Player View Post


     


    While I totally despise Android, I do not think it's in anyone's best interest to have it vanish... Apple and consumers would be better served with Android sticking around and Google paying up for the IP they have stolen.



    I actually agree with you, and even though Apple could kill Android off, I'm not sure they want to do so, since they did offer Sanscum a chance to license their IP. 


     


    However, if Apple wins this case, it will serve notice to all other manufacturers who license Android that they need to get in line and pay Apple for past sales AND pay going forward if they intend to use Android. 


     


    This may cause everyone to drop Android (effectively killing it). 


     


    The real loser in this may be Google. There may be a huge judgement against Google by Apple, but beyond that, Google may find themselves without Apple supporting Google Search and Maps. Without Apple, their bottom line will suffer and the combined judgement and loss of revenue may weaken Google to where another contender can come forward. Whatever Apple does if they win, Google will suffer.

  • Reply 8 of 143
    Jesus, the packaging is a complete rip off! There's no way this is a coincidence.
  • Reply 9 of 143
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post



    Jesus, the packaging is a complete rip off! There's no way this is a coincidence.


    I liked the really ancient eco-friendly/easily recyclable cardboard boxes, but I'm consistent in this regard. I don't think anything needs overdone packaging just to tell users that it's great.

  • Reply 10 of 143

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post



    Jesus, the packaging is a complete rip off! There's no way this is a coincidence.


     


    but, but… it's just rectangles and boxes… Apple wants to patent "black"??


     


    A box with those exact specifications and an interior lift-out "shelf" is just the natural progression for smartphone packaging when the smartphone looks exactly like an iPho… oops.

  • Reply 11 of 143


    What this makes me wonder about the most is...


     


    Why isn't Apple suing Google directly for infringing with Android?


     


    I can see going after Samsung for the look and feel copying. That's pretty blatant. I suppose it "kills two birds with one stone" to also attack the underlying platform? If they win, it's a win against all Android phones and Android itself?


     


    But still… it seems that a parallel suit vs Google/Android would be appropriate.

  • Reply 12 of 143
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,031member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post


    What this makes me wonder about the most is...


     


    Why isn't Apple suing Google directly for infringing with Android?


     


    I can see going after Samsung for the look and feel copying. That's pretty blatant. I suppose it "kills two birds with one stone" to also attack the underlying platform? If they win, it's a win against all Android phones and Android itself?


     


    But still… it seems that a parallel suit vs Google/Android would be appropriate.



    Where is the money? Samsung is the probably biggest profiter from Android. That's why.


     


    Google may have produced an operating system, but really, what damage of itself has that caused? Relatively little. Yes, they have produced handsets under the Google name but it's a drop in the ocean compared to Samsung, HTC, etc. Like you say, two birds with one stone.

  • Reply 13 of 143
    geoadmgeoadm Posts: 81member


    I had a feeling Apples intention was to set a precedent. The way things are going most companies will be ditching Android due to the cost of licensing to everyone but its owner. Google will have to come up with other ways of tracking people.

  • Reply 14 of 143


    Or maybe they're seeking the Microsoft result. Oddly, Android phone makers pay license fees to M$...


     


    Apple tried to make that happen with Samsung. If everyone had to pay $30 per phone to Apple, on top of what they pay to M$, Android would not be nearly as compelling for manufacturers...


     


    Samsung ignoring that offer led to a different strategy (straight litigation) perhaps...

  • Reply 15 of 143
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member


    Did anyone else notice that the box labelled under iPhone 4 is a 3G or 3GS, it looks like Samsung's lawyers aren't the only ones who can make mistakes.

  • Reply 16 of 143
    spicedspiced Posts: 94member
    It's not necessary iPhone 4 or 4S. It's the complete iPhone product family ranging from packaging, UI, look and feel, iOS .....all the way.
  • Reply 17 of 143
    mauszmausz Posts: 243member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post


     


    but, but… it's just rectangles and boxes… Apple wants to patent "black"??


     


    A box with those exact specifications and an interior lift-out "shelf" is just the natural progression for smartphone packaging when the smartphone looks exactly like an iPho… oops.



     


    Actually the first LG Prada had this kind of packing before the first iPhone came out, and they were probably not the first as well.

  • Reply 18 of 143
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mausz View Post


     


    Actually the first LG Prada had this kind of packing before the first iPhone came out, and they were probably not the first as well.



     


    Apart from not displaying an image of the phone on the box.... and having completely different  dimensions. 

  • Reply 19 of 143
    tooltalktooltalk Posts: 766member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post


    Or maybe they're seeking the Microsoft result. Oddly, Android phone makers pay license fees to M$...


     


    Apple tried to make that happen with Samsung. If everyone had to pay $30 per phone to Apple, on top of what they pay to M$, Android would not be nearly as compelling for manufacturers...


     


    Samsung ignoring that offer led to a different strategy (straight litigation) perhaps...



     


    I believe the licensing fee Microsoft is collecting is quite trivial - less than $15 per unit.


     


    The presentation doesn't seem to cover any design patents (look & feel) in question - so I'm guessing that the patents listed in the presentation are either trivial or invalidated.  If I remember correctly from last year's lawsuit in Austrialia, Apple was willing to license non-core/junk patents only.


     


    Well, consider that no courts in Netherland, Austrialia, Germany or UK agreed with Apple that Samsung infringed on Apple's design patents - the only exception was the Dusseldorf Court, known as East-Texas court of Germany (or patent troll court), where Apple was able to ban Galaxy Tab under Germany's unique "unfair competition" law.  There were a few Android related infringements (eg, photo gallery scroll patent), but Samsung later removed the infringing features. 

  • Reply 20 of 143
    lol, that isn't an iPhone 4
Sign In or Register to comment.