Sadly, movie quotes won't prevent this war. It's already started...and I think the first thermonuclear munitions have been successfully lobbed by Apple. Now only one company can make iPhones. It's not only not fair, but it's also very discriminatory. Too bad. I really liked the Galaxy iPhone.
Thanks for proving Apple's point.
There's no such thing as a 'Galaxy iPhone'. The fact that you call it such strongly supports Apple's contention that Samsung intentionally misled consumers to create confusion.
No one else should be able make iPhones any more than anyone else should be able to make a Buick Enclave. It's a trade-named product from a single manufacturer.
Of course, that doesn't stop Samsung from making phones that are NOT exact copies of the iPhone - and Apple never tried to stop them from doing that.
There's no such thing as a 'Galaxy iPhone'. The fact that you call it such strongly supports Apple's contention that Samsung intentionally misled consumers to create confusion.
No one else should be able make iPhones any more than anyone else should be able to make a Buick Enclave. It's a trade-named product from a single manufacturer.
Of course, that doesn't stop Samsung from making phones that are NOT exact copies of the iPhone - and Apple never tried to stop them from doing that.
I'm just glad that my level of sarcasm is clear enough that nobody requires the "/s".
edit: yesterday I guess....or is it an iPhone announcement????
I found this a bit weird.
Samsung started off with a lot of phones that were almost identical to the iPhone, then as the suits started to roll, they actually moved to a more original design with their latest Galaxy phones. Now, right after they lost the suit, they come out with three phones and two tablets that are all almost indistinguishable from iPhone/iPad at a moderate distance.
It's like they are doubling down on the idiocy. I hope Apple sues them all over again.
If you take a step back and look at the big picture, look at all the legal messes that have been caused by Google's "free" and "open" Android OS. Did Google not anticipate any of this or did they just not care about legal situations that they were potentially putting their OEMs into?
This is a really good point that is often overlooked. Everyone talks about Apple "suing instead of innovating" and blame most of the patent wars on them, but it really was Google that started it all.
IMO, it seems that Google basically just thought that everyone would (like them) ignore the patent issues and embrace "open-ness" (on their terms only of course). It was a foolish idea based on a juvenile understanding of how the law and the markets would respond.
Google is really the culprit here. Google is the one that started all of these legal battles and patent wars regardless of who actually hired the first lawyer. It's their ridiculous teenaged attitude towards some rather grown up laws that's at fault for the whole fiasco IMO.
What I don't understand here is (just like in the Nokia settlement) how Apple should have any responsibility whatsoever.
Apple did not develop their own LTE chipset, nor have they developed any of the associated tech. They buy LTE chips, amplifiers, transmitters, etc. from other companies. If those companies have license to manufacture and sell the parts, why should Apple have to buy a license to assemble them into a product? If there are any royalties to be paid, shouldn't the component manufacturers be paying them (and presumably passing the costs along to their customers.)
Am I missing something fundamental about international patent law here? Or has Apple actually developed some of the LTE tech used in their products?
Or am I right and this suit is purely frivolous?
This above is Apple's legal argument, that the $10 chip they buy from Intel or Qualcomm is already licensed for SEPs via contracts with Samsung and Moto, respectively. If Apple pays $10 for a chip, and the chipmaker pays the licensor, then, the licensor has no right to double dip for license fees.
Samsung and Moto want to revoke those pass-thru licenses, but only in regards to Apple and no other competitor.
Apple claims Moto and Samsung can't ask them for money too, bc the theory of Patent Exhaustion.
Apple has been trying to get all of the license contracts from the Samsung/Intel and Moto/Qualcomm agreements. Samsung and Moto have been fighting tooth and nail to prevent Apple from seeing those contracts.
IIRC Apple has gotten access to some of the Samsung/Intel/Qualcomm contracts via courts in California. In the past week, Apple won a motion for further discovery, against Moto in Wisconsin, which may allow them to obtain the Moto/Qualcomm license contracts.
It is all going to come down to the legal wording of the license agreements.
If the courts decide in favor of Apple's arguments, Apple might be able to prove anti-competitive behavior under antitrust law, potentially collecting damages. This might also draw attention from the Dept of Justice and FTC, which may start their own investigations, and impose their own damages.
In the long, it seems very risky to sue with FRAND patents, bc the potential losses could be large, but either way, it's going to cause more government scrutiny of the wireless market. This could lead to more government oversight or potential regulations. This is the last thing that wireless industry would desire, the possibility of the government dictating the rules of the free market.
The other wireless SEP owners who license on "real" FRAND terms, are probably pissed at Moto and Samsung, whose actions are causing closer government scrutiny in the EU and US. The other wireless SEP owners don't want the courts or other government bodies to dictate FRAND terms and rates.
Moto and Samsung are creating a huge headache for everyone else in the industry.
Apple buys a chipset that is on the market and throws it inside. what's the big deal? If the chips to connect to 4G/LTE are on the market, then why can't they use those chip sets? I don't get it...
Samsung is hilarious with this nonsense… Here is a company with $14B in the bank threatening another company with 10 TIMES as much money in the bank. I hate Asian companies, I really do. They don't have any creativity - look at all of them, they just copy what they see. The Prius is the only innovative thing to come out of southeast Asia in recent memory, and even that is based on the Atkinson Cycle engine which is a US patent.
If the world were a human body, the US would be the brain and Asia would be the hands… sorry to be so blunt, but it's true.
Just wait until Samsung adds their garbage into Windows Phone, again violating Apple's patents. They just don't seem to care who says what about whatever they do. I hope they are leveled by Apple in a series of patent wins and business acquisitions.
Sadly, Samsung still looks like the most reliable component vendor for a number of parts Apple needs for their phone. Until this changes (especially as it relates to the manufacturing the processor), Samsung will continue trying to stick it to Apple in some way or another.
One thing I'm a little disgusted by is the lack of support that Apple has received from other companies in the U.S.and Europe. Samsung is just as much a threat to the business of Microsoft and Nokia as they are to Apple, and a word of support would go a long way to break the Android fud that the problem here is Apple and their selfish idea that they should protect their innovation in the marketplace.
When evil is being done one has to look hard at those who are turning the other way.
One thing I'm a little disgusted by is the lack of support that Apple has received from other companies in the U.S.and Europe. Samsung is just as much a threat to the business of Microsoft and Nokia as they are to Apple, and a word of support would go a long way to break the Android fud that the problem here is Apple and their selfish idea that they should protect their innovation in the marketplace.
When evil is being done one has to look hard at those who are turning the other way.
For now they seem to be doing just fine on their own, so I'm not surprised the others are leaving them to get on with it.
I think I said "eventually". It may take two years, five years, a decade, who knows..., but it will eventually become just one shape [or perhaps none - because in the future we can start speaking telepathically even over a long distance with a quantum phone].
If you want to place the condition that your statement will be true in the indefinite future, it automatically becomes unfalsifiable. I automatically dismiss these types of arguments for their rhetorical nature.
If Samsung try to use LTE FRAND patents against Apple it may be another nail in their coffin
The EU is already investigating Samsung over use of standards essential patents
Samsung could end up being fined more by the EU than they lost to Apple
I don't think Samsung is trying to ban Apple's products, as Apple is doing now. Samsung will probably ask for a high rate, though a rate far fair, reasonable than Apple's rate, to force Apple to cross-license.
There is really nothing set in stone about "fair" or "reasonable" price. If Apple can charge $25 per low-end Android device (20%) for their utility patents, I don't see why Samsung can't charge Apple 10% or 15% for all eight.
If Samsung try to use LTE FRAND patents against Apple it may be another nail in their coffin
The EU is already investigating Samsung over use of standards essential patents
Samsung could end up being fined more by the EU than they lost to Apple
I don't think Samsung is trying to ban Apple's products, as Apple is doing now. Samsung will probably ask for a high rate, though a rate far fair, reasonable than Apple's rate, to force Apple to cross-license.
There is really nothing set in stone about "fair" or "reasonable" price. If Apple can charge $25 per low-end Android device (20%) for their utility patents, I don't see why Samsung can't charge Apple 10% or 15% for all eight.
So, in your view, FRAND patents are no different to non-FRAND patents?
I really don't know. If you see similar writing patters, there's that as evidence, but as far as I see, I think Connie is his own variant of psychopath, creating his own slew of repeat accounts.
Originally Posted by muppetry
So, in your view, FRAND patents are no different to non-FRAND patents?
In his view Samsung didn't copy Apple, so there's that.
Samsung is hilarious with this nonsense… Here is a company with $14B in the bank threatening another company with 10 TIMES as much money in the bank. I hate Asian companies, I really do. They don't have any creativity - look at all of them, they just copy what they see. The Prius is the only innovative thing to come out of southeast Asia in recent memory, and even that is based on the Atkinson Cycle engine which is a US patent.
If the world were a human body, the US would be the brain and Asia would be the hands… sorry to be so blunt, but it's true.
Nice how you completely missed good old Europe. I'm guessing no one craves for Ferari, Lambo, Porsche, BMW, Audi, Merc... anymore?
Samsung started off with a lot of phones that were almost identical to the iPhone, then as the suits started to roll, they actually moved to a more original design with their latest Galaxy phones. Now, right after they lost the suit, they come out with three phones and two tablets that are all almost indistinguishable from iPhone/iPad at a moderate distance.
It's like they are doubling down on the idiocy. I hope Apple sues them all over again.
You don't think they designed those phones/tablets after they lost on court. I know Asians are in general efficient hard working people, but designing (or even "designing"), prototyping and producing phone in less than a week would be a real achievement!
Much as I can see, front of the phone is very much alike Galaxy S3 (which I didn't find that much like iPhone 4/4s), while rear is reasonably unique:
Now... I didn't really spend too much time figuring out what is Samsung found to infringe and what not, but my general understanding is, it is more about software patents (like rubber-banding etc) than about looks. If this is correct, unless they try to implement their TouchWiz instead of WP8 home screen, they should be reasonably safe - I'm pretty sure MS and Apple have GUI elements sorted between them.
Comments
The EU is already investigating Samsung over use of standards essential patents
Samsung could end up being fined more by the EU than they lost to Apple
Thanks for proving Apple's point.
There's no such thing as a 'Galaxy iPhone'. The fact that you call it such strongly supports Apple's contention that Samsung intentionally misled consumers to create confusion.
No one else should be able make iPhones any more than anyone else should be able to make a Buick Enclave. It's a trade-named product from a single manufacturer.
Of course, that doesn't stop Samsung from making phones that are NOT exact copies of the iPhone - and Apple never tried to stop them from doing that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Thanks for proving Apple's point.
There's no such thing as a 'Galaxy iPhone'. The fact that you call it such strongly supports Apple's contention that Samsung intentionally misled consumers to create confusion.
No one else should be able make iPhones any more than anyone else should be able to make a Buick Enclave. It's a trade-named product from a single manufacturer.
Of course, that doesn't stop Samsung from making phones that are NOT exact copies of the iPhone - and Apple never tried to stop them from doing that.
I'm just glad that my level of sarcasm is clear enough that nobody requires the "/s".
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3
huh??
edit: yesterday I guess....or is it an iPhone announcement????
I found this a bit weird.
Samsung started off with a lot of phones that were almost identical to the iPhone, then as the suits started to roll, they actually moved to a more original design with their latest Galaxy phones. Now, right after they lost the suit, they come out with three phones and two tablets that are all almost indistinguishable from iPhone/iPad at a moderate distance.
It's like they are doubling down on the idiocy. I hope Apple sues them all over again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower
...
If you take a step back and look at the big picture, look at all the legal messes that have been caused by Google's "free" and "open" Android OS. Did Google not anticipate any of this or did they just not care about legal situations that they were potentially putting their OEMs into?
This is a really good point that is often overlooked. Everyone talks about Apple "suing instead of innovating" and blame most of the patent wars on them, but it really was Google that started it all.
IMO, it seems that Google basically just thought that everyone would (like them) ignore the patent issues and embrace "open-ness" (on their terms only of course). It was a foolish idea based on a juvenile understanding of how the law and the markets would respond.
Google is really the culprit here. Google is the one that started all of these legal battles and patent wars regardless of who actually hired the first lawyer. It's their ridiculous teenaged attitude towards some rather grown up laws that's at fault for the whole fiasco IMO.
This above is Apple's legal argument, that the $10 chip they buy from Intel or Qualcomm is already licensed for SEPs via contracts with Samsung and Moto, respectively. If Apple pays $10 for a chip, and the chipmaker pays the licensor, then, the licensor has no right to double dip for license fees.
Samsung and Moto want to revoke those pass-thru licenses, but only in regards to Apple and no other competitor.
Apple claims Moto and Samsung can't ask them for money too, bc the theory of Patent Exhaustion.
Apple has been trying to get all of the license contracts from the Samsung/Intel and Moto/Qualcomm agreements. Samsung and Moto have been fighting tooth and nail to prevent Apple from seeing those contracts.
IIRC Apple has gotten access to some of the Samsung/Intel/Qualcomm contracts via courts in California. In the past week, Apple won a motion for further discovery, against Moto in Wisconsin, which may allow them to obtain the Moto/Qualcomm license contracts.
It is all going to come down to the legal wording of the license agreements.
If the courts decide in favor of Apple's arguments, Apple might be able to prove anti-competitive behavior under antitrust law, potentially collecting damages. This might also draw attention from the Dept of Justice and FTC, which may start their own investigations, and impose their own damages.
In the long, it seems very risky to sue with FRAND patents, bc the potential losses could be large, but either way, it's going to cause more government scrutiny of the wireless market. This could lead to more government oversight or potential regulations. This is the last thing that wireless industry would desire, the possibility of the government dictating the rules of the free market.
The other wireless SEP owners who license on "real" FRAND terms, are probably pissed at Moto and Samsung, whose actions are causing closer government scrutiny in the EU and US. The other wireless SEP owners don't want the courts or other government bodies to dictate FRAND terms and rates.
Moto and Samsung are creating a huge headache for everyone else in the industry.
Apple buys a chipset that is on the market and throws it inside. what's the big deal? If the chips to connect to 4G/LTE are on the market, then why can't they use those chip sets? I don't get it...
Kind of early to start partnering with MS. Might find themselves tied to a dog and then lose Google as their BFF.
Samsung is hilarious with this nonsense… Here is a company with $14B in the bank threatening another company with 10 TIMES as much money in the bank. I hate Asian companies, I really do. They don't have any creativity - look at all of them, they just copy what they see. The Prius is the only innovative thing to come out of southeast Asia in recent memory, and even that is based on the Atkinson Cycle engine which is a US patent.
If the world were a human body, the US would be the brain and Asia would be the hands… sorry to be so blunt, but it's true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Just wait until Samsung adds their garbage into Windows Phone, again violating Apple's patents. They just don't seem to care who says what about whatever they do. I hope they are leveled by Apple in a series of patent wins and business acquisitions.
Sadly, Samsung still looks like the most reliable component vendor for a number of parts Apple needs for their phone. Until this changes (especially as it relates to the manufacturing the processor), Samsung will continue trying to stick it to Apple in some way or another.
One thing I'm a little disgusted by is the lack of support that Apple has received from other companies in the U.S.and Europe. Samsung is just as much a threat to the business of Microsoft and Nokia as they are to Apple, and a word of support would go a long way to break the Android fud that the problem here is Apple and their selfish idea that they should protect their innovation in the marketplace.
When evil is being done one has to look hard at those who are turning the other way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eluard
One thing I'm a little disgusted by is the lack of support that Apple has received from other companies in the U.S.and Europe. Samsung is just as much a threat to the business of Microsoft and Nokia as they are to Apple, and a word of support would go a long way to break the Android fud that the problem here is Apple and their selfish idea that they should protect their innovation in the marketplace.
When evil is being done one has to look hard at those who are turning the other way.
For now they seem to be doing just fine on their own, so I'm not surprised the others are leaving them to get on with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs
I think I said "eventually". It may take two years, five years, a decade, who knows..., but it will eventually become just one shape [or perhaps none - because in the future we can start speaking telepathically even over a long distance with a quantum phone].
If you want to place the condition that your statement will be true in the indefinite future, it automatically becomes unfalsifiable. I automatically dismiss these types of arguments for their rhetorical nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJWilkin
If Samsung try to use LTE FRAND patents against Apple it may be another nail in their coffin
The EU is already investigating Samsung over use of standards essential patents
Samsung could end up being fined more by the EU than they lost to Apple
I don't think Samsung is trying to ban Apple's products, as Apple is doing now. Samsung will probably ask for a high rate, though a rate far fair, reasonable than Apple's rate, to force Apple to cross-license.
There is really nothing set in stone about "fair" or "reasonable" price. If Apple can charge $25 per low-end Android device (20%) for their utility patents, I don't see why Samsung can't charge Apple 10% or 15% for all eight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJWilkin
If Samsung try to use LTE FRAND patents against Apple it may be another nail in their coffin
The EU is already investigating Samsung over use of standards essential patents
Samsung could end up being fined more by the EU than they lost to Apple
I don't think Samsung is trying to ban Apple's products, as Apple is doing now. Samsung will probably ask for a high rate, though a rate far fair, reasonable than Apple's rate, to force Apple to cross-license.
There is really nothing set in stone about "fair" or "reasonable" price. If Apple can charge $25 per low-end Android device (20%) for their utility patents, I don't see why Samsung can't charge Apple 10% or 15% for all eight.
So, in your view, FRAND patents are no different to non-FRAND patents?
No, it looks different from the rear - I'd say different chassis and materials both. Anandtech.com had a few nice photos. From the front, well.
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Wasn't ConradJoe just another Teckstud?
I really don't know. If you see similar writing patters, there's that as evidence, but as far as I see, I think Connie is his own variant of psychopath, creating his own slew of repeat accounts.
Originally Posted by muppetry
So, in your view, FRAND patents are no different to non-FRAND patents?
In his view Samsung didn't copy Apple, so there's that.
Nice how you completely missed good old Europe. I'm guessing no one craves for Ferari, Lambo, Porsche, BMW, Audi, Merc... anymore?
You don't think they designed those phones/tablets after they lost on court. I know Asians are in general efficient hard working people, but designing (or even "designing"), prototyping and producing phone in less than a week would be a real achievement!
Much as I can see, front of the phone is very much alike Galaxy S3 (which I didn't find that much like iPhone 4/4s), while rear is reasonably unique:
Now... I didn't really spend too much time figuring out what is Samsung found to infringe and what not, but my general understanding is, it is more about software patents (like rubber-banding etc) than about looks. If this is correct, unless they try to implement their TouchWiz instead of WP8 home screen, they should be reasonably safe - I'm pretty sure MS and Apple have GUI elements sorted between them.