Samsung planning legal offensive against Apple's unreleased iPhone 5

123468

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 154
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    Those familiar with the details of the Dutch court ruling understand that all of Apple's allegations against Samsung were dismissed with one exception: the scroll-back effect when one gets to the end of a list. And even there, the court gave Samsung many weeks to issue a patch to address it, with no penalties incurred in the meantime, so the likelihood of it having any practical impact on Samsung is close to zero.



    They were dismissed with respect to a preliminary injunction. At the main proceedings these other patents can still be upheld. The various preliminary injunction victories for both sides are just that: preliminary. Tactically important but strategically so-so. Nice to put pressure on Samsung but neither Apple nor Samsung will be significantly hurt by these.



    I've always thought that the slide to unlock patent rather bogus anyway...but I thought the same about 1-click and that was upheld.



    Either way, it's pretty idiotic for Samsung to piss off Apple in this fashion. As someone pointed out above, Apple has a history of investing in supplier capacity and capabilities to the tune of hundreds of millions. That money is going to flow into Samsung competitors along with more Apple business. A double whammy.



    Even where Samsung has a definitive advantage over competitors will get eroded away if Apple pumps funding onto them in order to be able to move away from Samsung components.
  • Reply 102 of 154
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 103 of 154
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,467member
    OldAppleGuy, the article says that Samsung is filing after the iPhone 5 is announced, and that assumes there's truth to the story to begin with.
  • Reply 104 of 154
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 105 of 154
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    A company is not allowed to have its legal counsel review the NDAs it's being asked to sign?



    You should read a little better, I am not talking about the NDA, I am talking about what the NDA covers! If the company builds parts for APPLE and uses its knowledge of those parts to start preparing a suit against it prior to APPLE releasing the product that uses those parts, it is violating its NDA!



    It can not share the information internally until Apple actually releases the product!
  • Reply 106 of 154
    lilgto64lilgto64 Posts: 1,147member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by d-range View Post


    I kind of understand what you are coming from, but I think GM and Ford mimicking each others models is not the same thing as Samsung copying Apple products. Nobody honestly thinks that only Apple should have a monopoly on rectangular devices with a glass screen and a button on the front, just like no-one honestly thinks only Ford can make a box on wheels.



    The Apple vs. Samsung case is not just about how the Galaxy tabs/phones look so much like iPad and the iPhone, it's about what is usually called the 'trade dress' that Samsung is copying from Apple. This includes the hardware itself, the software (up to the iTunes clone that Samsung made), the feature set, the packaging, which consumers the products are targeted at, the way they are marketed, basically every aspect of the product that is supposed make people want to buy it. Samsung is trying to copy everything about the iPad and iPhone, trying to lure the exact same customers as Apple is targeting with the iPad.



    In the Ford/GM example, neither of these two companies introduced, invented or popularized the mid-size family saloon, or added anything substantial to mid-size family saloons that didn't already exist. They were both already in the business of making cars, there has always been a demand for mid-size saloons, so they both came up with a car that fit that segment, and apparently one of them ripped off the others design.



    With the iPad and iPhone, Apple launched products that were a complete departure from everything that came before it, taking a few very bold decisions that many, many people have laughed at and ridiculed, but eventually turned out to be the big selling points of iOS devices. Apple took all these design and product decisions on their own accord, they developed their own software, and basically innovated almost everything about iOS devices themselves (note: 'innovate' is not the same as 'invent'). Seeing the succes of iOS devices, Samsung simply decided to imitate everything about them, going after the exact same customers using the exact same hardware running software that looks almost exactly the same (touchwiz, kies), advertising it as direct competitor to iOS products (except 'better'), and so on.



    I think this whole Apple vs Samsung war is about all of this, not just about how much the iPad looks like a Galaxy Tab. If that were true, Apple would be suing the manufacturers of about every tablet on the market, because they all look the same. They sued Samsung, because Samsung is trying to get a free ride on Apples success using products that you could almost call KIRFs with a big-brand name on them.



    auto makers do sue each other over things such as model names and such: http://www.examiner.com/ford-in-nati...k-infringement
  • Reply 107 of 154
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    OldAppleGuy, the article says that Samsung is filing after the iPhone 5 is announced, and that assumes there's truth to the story to begin with.



    they are filing after Apple releases the product, buy how could it know it needs to or should file suite "after" Apple releases the product unless they are using NDA information internally inappropriately?



    You all have to think a little bigger than this.... In other words, how could they know they should file a suite unless they are using Apple proprietary information? Their legal department should have absolutely no information to base even a "going to sue" until the product is actually released.... Lets get a clue here people....
  • Reply 108 of 154
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 109 of 154
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    Thanks for the clarification. I hadn't read the NDA myself, so I wasn't aware that it included that specific clause. I'm impressed to read that you have a copy, but may I ask how you got it without a violation of its terms?



    To be fair, you probably don't have to read any particular NDA to know how NDAs work. Under any of the NDAs that I have seen, using the information covered to prepare for a lawsuit would definitely be breaching it.
  • Reply 110 of 154
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 111 of 154
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    Oh, on that guess you would be wrong. It would be funny if I were able to tell you just how wrong you are, but with some of the regulars here being as unpredictably erratic as they are I try to give as little information about my work history as possible. Suffice to say that if you look at the logos around your office, chances are I've traded NDAs with about half of them.



    I'm not sure what guess you are referring to - I wasn't aware that I had made one. I was stating my experience of NDAs, which may be different from yours. From your comment on logos, you may have more experience with NDAs with these kinds of commercial entities, and they may be phrased differently than the kind I am used to dealing with.



    Either way, I take it that you are saying it would not be unusual for an NDA to be used like this?
  • Reply 112 of 154
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 113 of 154
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    With corporate-wide power of attorney, no one farts in a large org without it running by counsel. That counsel would have access to operational details would not only be normal, it would be abnormal if that were not the case.



    I have no issue with that, but it is only part of the problem. Running an NDA through your legal department is expected, and quite different from using the confidential information covered by an NDA, that you had agreed to and signed, to prepare a legal case against the other party. Can you comment on whether you are aware of that course of action being successful?
  • Reply 114 of 154
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 115 of 154
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    More to the point, we might ask whether the judge will agree with your interpretation in this case. That's really all that matters here, and thus far the case has not been thrown out over such a claim.



    I don't think that there is a case to throw out yet - just a leaked threat of one. And I wasn't trying to make an interpretation - just raising a question that I had hoped, from your earlier comments, you might have some insight into. Unless I am missing something, from your response it appears that you don't. It's always disappointing when that happens.
  • Reply 116 of 154
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 117 of 154
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,467member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nht View Post


    I've always thought that the slide to unlock patent rather bogus anyway...but I thought the same about 1-click and that was upheld.



    It Europe the 1-Click patent wasn't upheld. It failed the obviousness test.
  • Reply 118 of 154
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    Suffice to say that if you look at the logos around your office, chances are I've traded NDAs with about half of them.



    Ah.... boasting on the internet, anonymously?
  • Reply 119 of 154
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AnOldAplGuy View Post


    If they have filed any paper work based upon any prior knowledge given the parts they were building, they will have voided their non disclosure agreement. Samsung can not start any process prior to the actual release of the product, or they would be using NDA information to base their suit on, if this is true, then the suit will be null and void, as they used information that their legal department could not have their hands on legally until the actual launch of the product. IN a word, they BLEW it! Good!



    The article pretty much answers any doubts about these if/then premises:



    ----

    Samsung has alreadyplanned out an aggressive legal strategy to block sales of Apple's unannounced iPhone 5 when it arrives in Korea, a new report claims.



    Insiders at the South Korean electronics giant indicated to the Korea Times that the company plans to immediately take its legal battle to the next generation of productswhen Apple attempts to release the iPhone 5 in Korea.



    "Justafter the arrival of the iPhone 5 here, Samsung plans to take Apple to court here for its violation of Samsung?s wireless technology related patents," said an anonymous Samsung senior executive.



    "For as long as Apple does not drop mobile telecommunications functions, it would be impossible for it to sell its i-branded products without using our patents. We will stick to a strong stance against Apple during the lingering legal fights," he added.
  • Reply 120 of 154
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    It Europe the 1-Click patent wasn't upheld. It failed the obviousness test.



    Good. There are clearly stupid examples of software patents. That doesn't mean that valid examples cannot exist.
Sign In or Register to comment.