Samsung seeks to buy Corephotonics, firm suing Apple over iPhone camera tech
Samsung is reportedly nearing a deal to acquire Israeli firm Corephotonics, a firm specializing in smartphone camera technology that's currently embroiled in a legal battle with Apple.
The deal could be worth $150 million to $160 million, according to Israel's Globes. Samsung Ventures is already a key investor in Corephotonics, alongside other parties such as MediaTek and Apple assembly partner Foxconn.
Corephotonics has lodged multiple lawsuits against Apple, claiming that the dual-lens camera systems in the iPhone 7 Plus, 8 Plus, and iPhone X infringe on patented concepts. Specifically these cover dual-aperture, fixed focal length systems that enable expanded zoom, along with supporting software algorithms.
Apple executives and engineers allegedly met with Corephotonics staff as far back as 2012, reviewing the company's intellectual property at the time. In the following months Apple allegedly sent various hardware and software teams to Corephotonics' headquarters in Tel Aviv to examine prototype components and learn about optical processing methods, as well as to discuss partnership opportunities.
In June 2014 Apple expressed interest in licensing Corephotonics' algorithms and set up a meeting to discuss a business deal, according to filings. Following that, Apple requested access to a prototype telephoto lens, suggesting the companies could collaborate on hardware design.
Negotiations were halted in August 2014, though technical discussions continued between Apple and Corephotonics engineering teams for a few weeks. The communication lull continued until 2016, when Corephotonics reached out to a "high level hardware executive" offering to discuss collaboration on future smartphone projects.
Following yet another meeting, Apple again expressed interest in formalizing a business agreement and requested information regarding IP licensing. That was in August 2016, one month prior to the debut of the iPhone 7 Plus. By October, negotiations had again cooled and two subsequent meetings relating to potential licensing agreements bore no fruit.
The deal could be worth $150 million to $160 million, according to Israel's Globes. Samsung Ventures is already a key investor in Corephotonics, alongside other parties such as MediaTek and Apple assembly partner Foxconn.
Corephotonics has lodged multiple lawsuits against Apple, claiming that the dual-lens camera systems in the iPhone 7 Plus, 8 Plus, and iPhone X infringe on patented concepts. Specifically these cover dual-aperture, fixed focal length systems that enable expanded zoom, along with supporting software algorithms.
Apple executives and engineers allegedly met with Corephotonics staff as far back as 2012, reviewing the company's intellectual property at the time. In the following months Apple allegedly sent various hardware and software teams to Corephotonics' headquarters in Tel Aviv to examine prototype components and learn about optical processing methods, as well as to discuss partnership opportunities.
In June 2014 Apple expressed interest in licensing Corephotonics' algorithms and set up a meeting to discuss a business deal, according to filings. Following that, Apple requested access to a prototype telephoto lens, suggesting the companies could collaborate on hardware design.
Negotiations were halted in August 2014, though technical discussions continued between Apple and Corephotonics engineering teams for a few weeks. The communication lull continued until 2016, when Corephotonics reached out to a "high level hardware executive" offering to discuss collaboration on future smartphone projects.
Following yet another meeting, Apple again expressed interest in formalizing a business agreement and requested information regarding IP licensing. That was in August 2016, one month prior to the debut of the iPhone 7 Plus. By October, negotiations had again cooled and two subsequent meetings relating to potential licensing agreements bore no fruit.
Comments
Person A comes up with an idea, and patents it.
Person B comes up with the same idea, with no knowledge of Person A or their work.
Person B now owes money to Person A for that same idea.
Maybe I'm oversimplifying it, but that seems flawed to me. There should be some way to allow ideas to be fully owned by their creators without a first-come-first-served model. Yet the patent industry positions the above as "stealing", which it isn't.
The flaw in your reasoning is that all patents are available for review. You hire a patent attorney specializing in the area of your invention, who checks to see whether something very similar has already been patented, or is in the process. If you don’t do this, then it’s entirely your fault. Occasionally, a patent is missed in the review process. It happens as nothing is perfect.
it is stealing. What you want won’t work. How many people can look up a patent, and with your reasoning, take it as their own, while claiming they came up with it too? It’s not “the patent industry”. It’s the Constitution.
PS: Were either or you for Apple making the hugely successful Beats acquisition?
I was for them buying Beats. It was a good deal.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/samsung-said-to-acquire-israels-phone-camera-startup-corephotonics/
However, what you describe as the alternate solution to the US patent system is what is going on in China, anyone is allow to capitalize on a concept or idea and the company who does it best wins, no one gets a 19 yr free lunch. But you do not ever want to be the guy with all the new ideas and no capital to turn the idea into a product.
The number of lawsuits would double overnight, and they’d be left with a ton of companies they have no use for.
I understand when others make claims that Apple hasn't done their due diligence in determining what they believe is the path of least cost, but you've owned successful businesses for a long time so you have to know that Apple is running the numbers through countless bean counters and across multiple metrics to which we're not privy to determine that risking a drawn-out lawsuit is the best course of action.
Personally, I hate when Apple is caught up in what looks like direct stealing of legitimate claims by a small, non-trollish company, and I'd personally love to see Apple absorb these smaller companies because they recognize their innovation, but I don't run the company so it's just a pipe dream and not a claim as to what will make the company more wealthy even if I may argue that being ethical can a longterm, positive effect on sales.
Mind you, I don't know what else might be going on, it just seems like moderately un-Apple-ish behavior. Or maybe I'm just naive.
I remember when a bunch of us were arguing about how Apple’s cash (it was just around $35 billion then) was going to burn a hole in their pocket. Obviously, it didn’t. Instead they now throw it away on stock buybacks. That’s about $120 billion thrown away. So $150 million is nothing.
well, we don’t yet know if the lawsuit is justified. Most of the time, Apple wins the suit. A problem is also, and I can state this from my own experience, that you can be working on something, find that someone else is too, and that they have a patent. You look at it, and you believe that it doesn’t cover what your work is. So sometimes, you negotiate, and it goes nowhere. If your patent guys don’t think it’s an issue, you proceed. Sometimes, they’re wrong, and there’s a suit. Sometimes, they’re right, and there’s a suit. Sometimes the patents are invalidated during the suit.
its not that simple.