Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Samsung Expected To Sue Apple Over iPhone 5 LTE Networking

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the knock-down-drag-out dept.

Networking 283

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Geek.com: "The courtroom battle between Apple and Samsung seems to be far from over, and come tomorrow Apple is in for a major headache as soon as it makes the iPhone 5 official. That's because Samsung is poised to sue the company over patents it owns relating to LTE connectivity the new smartphone is expected to use. All Samsung needs to confirm is that the iPhone 5 is shipping with 4G LTE and it can then apparently set its lawyers into action. As is typical with these patent lawsuits, Samsung will most likely seek an import ban meaning the iPhone 5 may not be able to leave its manufacturing plants and make it to the U.S. to fulfill pre-orders. If such a thing ruling was made, Apple would most likely do a deal that meant it no longer pursued Samsung product bans, and might even forget about that billion dollar payout." Samsung's not the only one hoping to gain some leverage: itwbennett writes, "Apple's iPhone 5 and iPad 3 may violate a pair of patents bought by HTC back in April 2011 that cover methods used in 4G devices for faster downloads. International Trade Commission judge Thomas Pender said it would take 'clear and convincing' evidence to renounce the U.S. patents."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yay!!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41301257)

Yay!! Patents are awesome!!!

Re:Yay!!! (4, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301293)

Yay!! Patents are awesome!!!

I have the patent upon First Posts - you'll hear from my lawyers; Dewey, Skruem & Howe

Re:Yay!!! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41301367)

I have the patent upon threatening people with lawsuits - you'll hear from my lawyers; Curly, Larry & Moe

Re:Yay!!! (4, Funny)

cellocgw (617879) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301987)

I have the patent upon First Posts - you'll hear from my lawyers; Dewey, Skruem & Howe

beating the obvious to death: did Mr. Cheathem, Esq. retire, leaving a partnership to Mr. Skruem?

Re:Yay!!! (2)

Raistlin77 (754120) | more than 2 years ago | (#41302193)

It seems so. I've also heard rumors of Mr. Wen joining the firm.

Re:Yay!!! (1)

postmortem (906676) | more than 2 years ago | (#41302103)

I have a patent on filling of patents. Thus your patent is invalid.

Re:Yay!!! (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#41302015)

Those who live by the patent, die by the patent.

Re:Yay!!! (4, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#41302349)

So then why all the sympathy for Samsung? They have their own history of patent suits long before their current spat with Apple. They have also been part of cartels that have conspired in price fixing on DRAM chips and LCD panels, etc. Samsung is one of the companies least worthy of sympathy right up their with Apple themselves. Samsung has contributed to the patent idiocy and should have no sympathy when it is brought to bear on them.

Fuck it. (4, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301271)

Let's just have an official monopoly on cell phones. Then the government could suppress competition directly and completely, instead of this piecemeal price raising done through patents.

Re:Fuck it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41301301)

Time to break out the popcorn and watch some mutual self destruction through the courts.... we will all lose, except for the lawyers.

Re:Fuck it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41301437)

s/self/assured/, dimwit.

Re:Fuck it. (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301749)

Can anyone recommend a company which doesn't engage in this kind of nonsense on a regular basis? I'd like to be able to buy a phone knowing that I'm not funding innovation suppressing lawsuits and inter-company marketing/distribution battles. This is nothing to do with patents, it's to do with companies threatening the competition and trying to make life difficult for them.

Re:Fuck it. (2)

Ashenkase (2008188) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301915)

Yep, here you go. A little self assembly is required:

Tin Can Phone [dsokids.com]

Re:Fuck it. (4, Funny)

nighthawk243 (2557486) | more than 2 years ago | (#41302173)

An extruded geometric shape with non-sharp edges? You're just asking for Apple's lawyers to file a lawsuit against you.

Re:Fuck it. (5, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301919)

No, there are no mobile phone companies that don't hold patents and use them either as weapons or as barriers to entry for potentially new competitors, This is why it's silly when people take sides in these fights since neither side is some angelic cmoany. Fanboism overrides logic every time.

bad for consumers (0)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 2 years ago | (#41302235)

Samsung said that Apple's patents were bad for consumer choice. Since Sansun is Pro-choice, I'm quite sure Samsung would feel that denying 4g to apple would be a bad thing to do. Ergo Samsung will not sue apple. Riiiight.

The interesting thing here is that the counter argument that apple applied does not hold for 4G. Apple said that, well there's lots and lots of ways to shape the look and feel of a smart phone, we explored many ourselves and so did samsung. So by forcing samsung out of copying our style and design, the consumer actually will get innovative new stylings solving the same interface problems. all good for consumer choice and innovation and patents.

But unlike style and design, 4G is a standard. You might be able to innovate around the edges of the implementation, but it would not be consumer freindly for everyone to have to reinvent an non-work-alike 4G.

I would therefore guess 4G patents are for sale at non-discrimiantory pricing and apple may need to pay. But it won't be a trial judgement.

Re:bad for consumers (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#41302311)

You seem to be responding to someone else or didn't actually understand my post.

Re:Fuck it. (1)

NSN A392-99-964-5927 (1559367) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301323)

Let's just have an official monopoly on cell phones. Then the government could suppress competition directly and completely, instead of this piecemeal price raising done through patents.

Or drone strikes

The only winners here (4, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301363)

The only winners here are the law firms. The customers suffer limited feature availibility rather than a enjoy a robust market of the best each manufacturer can produce. It's a pretty rotten system. "You can only buy what our lawyers and patent portfolio will allow you to from out competitors" Really makes the patent system look like a tool of would-be monopolists.

Re:The only winners here (4, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301553)

Really makes the patent system look like a tool of would-be monopolists.

The point is patents is precisely to grant monopolies. Everyone using patents is, in some sense, a monopolist.

Patents are a lot like chemotherapy. When they're limited in scope and duration, they can be a net-positive. Unfortunately, today's patent regime is more like a big dose of polonium.

Re:The only winners here (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301641)

The majority of US politicians often have a legal background. Many whom have worked at a law firm. They are (by design) an entirely different class of people. So of course they are the winners. What politician would have it any other way?

Re:The only winners here (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301723)

The majority of US politicians often have a legal background. Many whom have worked at a law firm. They are (by design) an entirely different class of people. So of course they are the winners. What politician would have it any other way?

And when it doesn't work in their favor, they find ways to deregulate or subsidize which ultimately works very, very well for them later.

Re:The only winners here (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#41302049)

The problem isn't the patent system, it's the patent office getting paid for every patent they grant, not for how many they reject.

Frand? (2)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301673)

The big difference for me is that there are many ways to design the look and feel of a tablet, but few ways to make a 4g lte device. Based on Samsung and htc patents, is it even possible to design around them? I thought that was the purpose of frand licensing, to prevent monopolistic behavior.

Re:Frand? (1)

Samalie (1016193) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301731)

I'm not sure the 4G LTE patents in question are FRAND-based.

If they are....well then Samsung is just being an asshole, and while their claims would be held up in court, it is of minimal effect to Apple - they just pay the proper FRAND terms.

If they're not....then Apple is going to get faceraped, and justly so.

Re:Frand? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41302409)

If they've found to be willfully infringing, it doesn't matter if they are FRAND or not. They can still be liable for treble damages.

apple wants special treatment (4, Informative)

Chirs (87576) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301875)

Samsung and HTC both have standard FRAND licensing rates. However, generally everyone just cross-licenses patents instead of paying cash royalties.

Apple doesn't want to cross-license, but also complains that the (standard, charged the same to everyone) cash royalty rates are too high.

Re:Fuck it. (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301943)

Let's just have an official monopoly on cell phones.

That's precisely why all of this is happening. The outcome of all the litigation will eventually determine who you can legally buy a phone from.

By all means, bring on the lawsuits. More, more! (5, Informative)

Sydin (2598829) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301285)

With any luck, this tangled web of patent wars will go on for so long, and reach such an intensity, that legislatures will finally recognize the problems with current patent laws. If our court system has to be tied up into a knot who's density rivals that of dark matter in order to get the point across, then so be it.

Re:By all means, bring on the lawsuits. More, more (2)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301365)

As soon as 1 congressman's iPhone 5 pre-order isn't fulfilled, I guarantee you they'll do something about it.

Re:By all means, bring on the lawsuits. More, more (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301481)

As soon as 1 congressman's iPhone 5 pre-order isn't fulfilled, I guarantee you they'll do something about it.

But I doubt it will take the form of fixing the patent system.

Likely just calling in favors to be sure he gets his phone first.

Re:By all means, bring on the lawsuits. More, more (3, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301581)

There is some indication this is already happening. The Congressional Research Service [thenextweb.com] released a report about it, and the report even used the word "Trolls" in the title.

Still the report is weak on actual recommendations, and spends a portion of its content defending trolls. Its encouraging for an arm of congress to even use the term Trolls, but with no clue as to a recommended solution there is a long way to go.

Re:By all means, bring on the lawsuits. More, more (1)

macbeth66 (204889) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301777)

The only way that Congress will ever start fixing things is when they come to a head. Brinksmanship. I so hope this screws up everyones' desires for the iPhone 5 and the public outcry becomes deafening.

I've showed folks some of the various artciles regarding the case and they had no clue there was even a case in the courts.

"Rounded corners? Really? You can patent those?"

ABM Treaty for Tim Cook (4, Insightful)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301313)

now that Steve Jobs is dead, there is no reason to continue his personal thermonuclear war. Tim Cook should get together with Samsung, Google, HTC et al and sign the equivalent of ABM treaty [wikipedia.org] and cross-license all patents like all normal industries.

Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook (1, Insightful)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301383)

now that Steve Jobs is dead, there is no reason to continue his personal thermonuclear war

Isn't the reason obvious? Apple is not a well-diversified company; they make a small number of shiny gadgets from which they derive the vast majority of their massive profits. Their personal computer division, software sales, and app-store/itunes sales are peanuts by comparison. Android, and Samsung in particular threatens those massive profits. That Tim Cook would not do everything in his power to destroy Android is completely counter to his role as CEO (to ensure those massive profits).

Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook (4, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301763)

Without iPhone/iPad, Apple would still makes lots of money. [apple.com] Apple would make an estimated $30B in revenue instead of $140B (based on Q3 estimates). Profit margin might be in the 30% range instead of the 40% though.

Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook (1)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 2 years ago | (#41302157)

Sure, they would still make boatloads of money. But why have one boatload when you could have two boatloads (corporate shareholder logic)? Just imagine the board meeting, where the board points to Android sales skyrocketing, and iPhone sales (and Apple's profits) falling proportionally, then asking Tim Cook what he's doing about it. His answer of "Well, we still make lots of money selling other things, there's enough to go around" isn't going to be particularly compelling.

Then again Android sales have skyrocketed and Apple's profits haven't fallen... which I think is what you'd expect in a marketplace that is still growing. I think Apple with their lawsuits are anticipating a time when sales are a zero sum game, and any Android sale necessarily means no iPhone sale (which is not the case yet).

Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook (1)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 2 years ago | (#41302403)

Without iPhone/iPad, Apple would still makes lots of money. [apple.com] Apple would make an estimated $30B in revenue instead of $140B (based on Q3 estimates). Profit margin might be in the 30% range instead of the 40% though.

Apple's wife has been piling that cash up in a rented foreign storage locker. She can't figure out how to launder it all back to the US to dividend to stock holders without paying taxes on it.

Maybe apple will realize it has enough money and see the danger of trading patents with Tuco Samsung-manca.

Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook (2, Informative)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 2 years ago | (#41302357)

Another rational for not cross licensing patents in this case is that Apple's patents are design patents and Samsungs are methods implementations for standards. Design patents are intended to distinguish a product so licensing them makes no sense. Standards are intended to unify operations so licensing their methods for money in non-discriminative ways makes sense.

Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41301387)

Wouldn't that just hurt the little guys?

Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook (4, Informative)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301467)

That is why we need major patent reform. The current system seems to favor the big dogs. The little guys can't spend resources defending their patents and the big dogs can use patents to fight each other and squish little guys.

Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook (2, Insightful)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301391)

That's how they've done business for 20 years and Jobs only hired people exactly like him. Every single division in his company is in have a monopoly or act like you do mode.

Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41301529)

That would be horrible and abuse of what the patent system was meant to do. We'd have an oligarchy, the companies would only compete against each other and lock out newcomers. When they have their small eco system why would they invite even more competition?

Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook (1)

Sydin (2598829) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301541)

Steve Jobs is like a Japanese Emperor. Just because he's dead doesn't mean he isn't still considered the supreme ruler of his domain.

Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41301795)

To apple, everybody else's patents are with $0 and their patents are priceless and not worth licensing at all. Thats their main problem with frand licensing, everybody else dont' pay anything for the patents since they cross license enough to cover it. Apple won't cross license and then think they can get the patents for peanuts, or free.

Re:ABM Treaty for Tim Cook (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301913)

now that Steve Jobs is dead, there is no reason to continue his personal thermonuclear war. Tim Cook should get together with Samsung, Google, HTC et al and sign the equivalent of ABM treaty [wikipedia.org] and cross-license all patents like all normal industries.

Tim Cook needs to get his product blocked and his patents invalidated before he will see the light. The Samsung verdict is 90% sure to be overturned on appeal if for no other reason than Jury Misconduct, and the patents Apple relied on were trivial UI features (software patents).

But as long as Cook's lawyers keep dragging in billion dollar judgements for million dollar expenditures Cook will not stop.

Maybe if Cook spent the Lawyer money improving the iPhone's user interface the man who's campaign chest he is filling could actually figure out how to use it [washingtontimes.com] .

Apple is going to reap what they have sown (0)

raitchison (734047) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301319)

Full Disclosure: I'm a bit of an Android enthusiast though I'm not sure if I rise to the level of fanboy as I don't own any android themed toys, stickers or clothing :)

Regardless of the merits of this case (or any of the other cases) one can only hope that these lawsuits call attention to the huge flaws in our patent system and how they stifle innovation. Of course realistic me knows that lobbyists will prevent any real reform from happening but anything that slows the tide of stupid patents being issued would be a good thing.

Re:Apple is going to reap what they have sown (2)

Sydin (2598829) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301423)

Lobbyists only really flourish because of how divided the public is on most major issues; they can be shouted down when people are coordinated and loud enough. Remember that SOPA and PIPA had a many lobbyists, and a LOT of lobby money behind it. The problem right now is that your average person isn't concerned about the problems with patent law, either because they don't recognize the problem, or they consider the topic too difficult to invest time into. Let's just imagine, for a second, that Samsung wins this upcoming patent battle, and the iPhone 5 gets an import ban in the US. THAT will move the common man to action, and if it is explained to them that our broken patent laws are responsible, there will almost certainly be enough of an outcry for congress to do something that they'll do it, even if they have to step on a few lobbyist toes to do so.

Re:Apple is going to reap what they have sown (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#41302321)

Regardless of the merits of this case (or any of the other cases) one can only hope that these lawsuits call attention to the huge flaws in our patent system and how they stifle innovation. Of course realistic me knows that lobbyists will prevent any real reform from happening but anything that slows the tide of stupid patents being issued would be a good thing.

Actually there are really only three big problems with patents that need immediate fixing, the rest could wait:

1) In spite of them being ruled illegal three times, the patent office insists on issuing software patents.
2) Patents are overly broad for trivial things.
3) Patent trolling is allowed.

If I had to pick ONE thing to get solved first it would be Trolling.

By trolling I mean:

Patent trolls can be individuals or companies, and they have no intention to manufacture or sell whatever the patent describes. In fact, their entire business model relies on buying patents, and finding companies to threaten (with the goal of settlement) and sue.

The simplest change would be a "Use it or Lose it" restriction on any patent.

You must License it or Manufacture it within 2 to 4 years or you lose the patent all together, and it becomes public domain (yet remains in effect to prevent someone else patenting the same thing).

After all, the idea of patents was to serve society, not one person's bank account. We allow the inventor to make money, as long as society gets the patent. But if only half the bargain is enforced its hardly fair.

Forced licensing at fair rates is long overdue. There also needs to be some attention to what is "fair" in licensing terms so that entire products don't bet banned or made uneconomic because of a simple tiny patent that the troll wants an arm and a leg for.

When Apple wants to ban something as complex as a cell phone simply because it has rounded corners that is simply obscene.

Live by the sword (1)

tokul (682258) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301337)

die by the sword

This is not possible (3, Interesting)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301351)

There is no way in hell this is possible. They made a phone centered around an entire transmission technology that another company owns and they didn't have a license for? THAT ISN'T POSSIBLE. No company is that stupid. You don't assemble an entire product and then cross your fingers and hope Samsung licenses it out to you AND THEN sue them for 1 billion dollars and win. Surprise, no LTE for you. What is really going on here? How legitimate is the patent(s) Samsung holds? I'm going to take a guess they don't own LTE itself in its entirety at least, right?

Re:This is not possible (1)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301419)

The question is if Samsung (and Apple) are negotiating in good faith on FRAND terms. By this type of action on Samsung's part, I would tend to argue they are not.

Re:This is not possible (4, Insightful)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301551)

As far as I can tell, LTE patents were never made FRAND, and it's unlikely that the telecommunications industry will do FRAND again. Apple pissed in the FRAND pool and now noone is interested in being friendly anymore.

Re:This is not possible (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301715)

Thats cool, then no more standards. Win for everybody! Not.

Re:This is not possible (5, Interesting)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301597)

Apple's definition of FRAND is (in typical Apple fasion) vastly distorted.

Apple's claim: Samsung wanted more for their patents than any other company has asked Apple in licensing fees. Note: This is NOT a violation of FRAND. Licensing fees for patents are proportional to the value of those patents. Apple said the fees were too much and chose not to pay.

Samsung's claim: Samsung asked Apple for the same amount of money they have asked from other licensees. This is the very definition of the "Non-Discriminatory" part of FRAND. If Samsung gave Apple any sort of discount that was not given to other licensees as Apple wanted, this would have been fundamentally discriminatory in favor of Apple. Note that Samsung doesn't seem to be suing any other companies - most likely because those companies are paying Samsung FRAND licensing fees that Apple refuses to pay. In general, most manufacturers are happily cross-licensing patents to each other - Apple is the exception. They refuse to license their patents, and also refuse to pay people for the patents they use.

Re:This is not possible (3, Insightful)

mk1004 (2488060) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301927)

Apple is the exception. They refuse to license their patents, and also refuse to pay people for the patents they use.

[citation needed]

And no, I own an Android phone, so don't go there.

I agree with you that FRAND doesn't mean that you have to charge everyone the same amount to use the patents you contributed to a standard. If someone doesn't bring any patents to the table, they should be charged more than someone else who did contribute.

What got Samsung last time was that the patents they tried to use against Apple were considered to have been paid for by the IC manufacturers who incorporated the use of those patents into their ICs. That's commonplace and allows IC manufacturers to sell to customers without those hundred or thousands of customers to each have to pay for those patents individually. Sadly, I suspect these LTE patents are the same type and their claims won't be upheld.

Re:This is not possible (0)

beltsbear (2489652) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301931)

Your statement is wrong. The ND in FRAND is non-discriminatory. It is against FRAND to ask for more from Apple then from others. Samsung has asked for many times more from Apple then from others and is also (even worse) going after exhausted patents.

Not Raisonnable (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41302111)

As usual, it a little more tricky.

Apple own many valuable non standard essential patents. No one can force Apple to licence them.
On the other hand all other manufacturers have been in the cellphone business for ages and own standard essential patents.

So, for other manufacturers, it makes sense to do cross-licensing agreements and noone actually pays the requested price for a cash-only license.

Now, it has already been established by judges all around the globe that FRAND patents should be able to be licensed in a cash-only fashion and this is the one Apple is seeking. Apple does not want to cross license its multitouch usability patents.

Samsung offering the same cash-only rate as anyone is indeed compatible with the ND (non discriminatory) part of FRAND.
However, the F stands for F and the R stands for Raisonnable. So forcing a cross licensing agreement is not fair. And the amount requested for the cash-only license is not Raisonnable.

So here it is highly propable that Samsung is not meeting its FRand commitment.

Re:This is not possible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41301737)

Motorola and likely Samsung ass well already offered Apple the same deal that all the licensees of their respective FRAND portfolios get. Apple did not take out a license. They think rounded corners and the same number of icons acrossed a screen that has been common since before little computing gadgets had cellular radio antennas in them (that apple didn't invent) is worth $24 per device. Hey apple how well would your well marketed crappy(but pretty) toy sell if it was just a round cornered tiny little computer that did not connect to jack shit.

Re:This is not possible (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301999)

There aren't enough details to tell. One possibility is that this is similar to the Motorola situation where they are suing Apple and MS for 3G patents. Apple's defense in that case is that they bought 3G chips from Qualcomm which grants them a sublicense according to the Qualcomm-Motorola agreements and Motorola cannot charge them separately.

Re:This is not possible (4, Interesting)

Godai (104143) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301459)

Most of the patents all around are pretty stupid. It sounds like Samsung doesn't have a patent on LTE, but on connecting to LTE networks that it would probably be impossible for Apple not to violate. Much in the same way that designing a phone that's not ugly violates patents from Apple. Its pretty obvious that Samsung's been waiting in the tall grass for an LTE iPhone to give Apple a little bit of karma; that its happened so close the other trial just makes the comedic possibilities that much more salivating.

Re:This is not possible (4, Interesting)

gutnor (872759) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301563)

That is not a patent that you violate or license, that is a web of patents specifically designed to cover as much of technology as possible so that any implementation, no matter how different from the competitor will violate at least one. Why do you think Samsung is so confident that they do not even to see the iPhone5 to be sure it violates their tech, just the spec: 4G LTE - we got that cornered ? Maybe they even sell the ships to Apple that Apple will be sued to use.

In the past we had the cold war between tech giant through cross-licensing, behind doors agreement and patent blackmarket. At least it seems we now enter regular patent war. Hopefully it will be quick and mean, so that we get at last a profound reform of the patent system.

Re:This is not possible (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41301567)

Apple doesn't make their own comm chips, they buy them from Qualcomm. Qualcomm licenses the patents from Motorola, Samsung, etc. So, yeah. (Some of the earlier iPhones didn't use qualcomm chips and Motorola successfully sued over them).

That said, Motorola and Samsung have both told Qualcomm that they can no longer re-license the patents to Apple (non-discrimanatory much?). To which Qualcomm said: go fuck yourself. And so far, the courts have agreed.

Re:This is not possible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41301677)

The think is a little more complex, in the 3G and LTE technology there are related patents that are not essential and then they can be excluded from the FRAND terms, those patent boost performance in various ways but is possible to made a 100% compliant device without those patents. Apple is trying to made those patents look like they are essential but they are not, normally the companies don't sue over those patents as exist a de facto crosslicense.

Re:This is not possible (1)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301813)

That's because things like "bounce when scrolling to the end of the list" are more important to the general public than a patent for the technology that makes the phone work.

Re:This is not possible (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41302205)

There is no way in hell this is possible. They made a phone centered around an entire transmission technology that another company owns and they didn't have a license for? THAT ISN'T POSSIBLE. No company is that stupid. You don't assemble an entire product and then cross your fingers and hope Samsung licenses it out to you AND THEN sue them for 1 billion dollars and win. Surprise, no LTE for you. What is really going on here? How legitimate is the patent(s) Samsung holds? I'm going to take a guess they don't own LTE itself in its entirety at least, right?

Apple is using a Qualcomm chip in the iPad 3 (and so likely in the iPhone 5). So, in fact, Apple is covered by the concept of Patent Exhaustion. During the recent court-case, Samsung actually tried to have the concept of Patent Exhaustion overturned which would have opened up anybody using ANY product to being sued for patent infringement.

Samesung are a bunch of cocks.

Patent Exhaustion? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41301421)

Since Qualcomm is a major holder of LTE patents I'd assume that they have already covered the licenses for the chips they are selling. This was how Apple avoided issues with Motorola's 3g patent suit for the CDMA iPhone 4 and 4s.

Just waiting for the mushroom cloud (4, Funny)

gtirloni (1531285) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301433)

It doesn't matter who fired first anymore.

Re:Just waiting for the mushroom cloud (2, Insightful)

Sydin (2598829) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301497)

It doesn't matter who fired first anymore.

Not to you, but it does to Apple. They fired first, and now instead of taking the usual potshots at one another, all the other companies are just firing on Apple. At the very least, they seem determined to reduce Apple to a cinder before turning on each other.

Re:Just waiting for the mushroom cloud (2, Insightful)

Mabhatter (126906) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301751)

Not really. Steve claimed patents on iPhone from day one. No other phone ad ALL the features iPhone did when it was released. In fact, when Google was designing Android, they LEFT OUT certain features like the pinch to zoom because Apple had a patent on those feataures from 2000 era Fingerworks multitouch devices.

Google had inside information because their boss sat on Apple's board. Samsung had inside information because they were selling the parts. They brazenly chose to copy and lost that bet.

The Dyson Vacuum commercial is a perfect example of Apple's position. Apple put a lot of effort in to be unique and they want the dollars for that. If it wasn't such a big deal, why did Samsung's own documents point out how important it was to not lose market to iPhone?

Re:Just waiting for the mushroom cloud (2)

macbeth66 (204889) | more than 2 years ago | (#41302221)

Not really. Steve claimed patents on iPhone from day one. No other phone ad ALL the features iPhone did when it was released. In fact, when Google was designing Android, they LEFT OUT certain features like the pinch to zoom because Apple had a patent on those feataures from 2000 era Fingerworks multitouch devices.

I had forgotten about that pinch thing. I though you couldn't patent the obvious. Years ago, when I tried my first touchscreen with Windows, I tried to do a zoom in using the same technique that all the smartphones had. Does that mean that I would be considered Prior Art, if I had written about how I had envisioned it working? I might never have gotten a patent, but this whole pinch thing is bloody obvious.

Re:Just waiting for the mushroom cloud (1)

mhsobhani (2688177) | more than 2 years ago | (#41302047)

It doesn't matter who fired first anymore.

it does... People remember who started it. Just like any other war.

HAHAHAHA! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41301505)

What goes around comes around. Apple is one rotten to the core company. They so richly deserve to have several new ones ripped for them.

Lawsuit will fail...again (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41301517)

Just as Samsung's failed 3G (UMTS) lawsuit..this one will fail too.
There is a tiny but mighty detail : patent exhaustion.

Apple, well all phones, uses transceiver chips by Qualcomm or a competitor of them. Qualcomm/whatever has licensed all relevant patents to make those chips. Any buyer of such a transceiver is automatically covered by that license.
Patent exhaustion will thereby nullify any lawsuit. It's simply an empty threat by Samsung.

Even worse. Both, the EU and the SK government are investigating Samsung for FRAND patent abuse. It will get only worse for them now as it is evident that Samsung is not playing by the rules.

Re:Lawsuit will fail...again (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41301617)

Any buyer of such a transceiver is automatically covered by that license.

Or not - maybe Qualcomm have a license to manufacture products using those patents, but they might not have the ability to pass onwards to their clients a license to use those patents, which may have to be negotiated with the patent holder. Yeah, it's stupid isn't it - but as a B2B situation it may be the situation.

In addition the Samsung LTE patents are new or specific enough that they won't come under FRAND - maybe in a year or two when the standard is well established like 3G.

Re:Lawsuit will fail...again (3, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301921)

That would be rather stupid legally for Qualcomm to manufacture chips and not have the ability to pass the license forward to clients. Why would anyone buy from Qualcomm then? It would be like saying that a standard ARM chip from TI, Samsung, nVidia requires the manufacturer to negotiate with ARM separately for licensing. Now if Apple had Qualcomm custom design a 4G chip for them, that's different. As far as I know, Apple uses a standard chip.

OMG! (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301549)

So if I read this right, this one Samsung patent could completely negate the recent Apple-Samsung patent U.S. court case. Why didn't these two companies realize this and come to some kind of truce before it ever got to court. Seems to me they may have wasted a whole lot of time, money and resources that could've gone toward better things. Maybe they were absent from their kindergarten class when they taught about 'cooperating' with their fellow classmates.

Re:OMG! (5, Insightful)

Sydin (2598829) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301635)

Why didn't these two companies realize this and come to some kind of truce before it ever got to court?

Because Apple made the stupid move of suing Samsung in the first place. The telecommunications and technology companies were previously in a sort of Mutually Assured Destruction scenario: where everybody held patents that they could sue almost any other company for, but they kept quiet so long as those other companies didn't sue in turn. It wasn't a good system by any means, but it more or less worked. Apple suing Samsung was the equivalent of throwing MAD out the window and jamming their finger on the big red button, and praying everybody is dead before they get a chance to fire back. Surprise surprise: Samsung is still alive, they also have a big red button, and they're pissed.

Re:OMG! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41301811)

Regardless, the lawyer that said "push the button" is still going to make a lot more than any lawyer that said "don't".

Re:OMG! (1)

Mabhatter (126906) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301835)

The samsung patent is a FRAND patent. It's part of an industry specification (supported by the FCC) and they have to license at a reasonable rate. Samsung's actions are a completely unrelated legal issue.

I think if this is a real threat, Apple already has an initial shipment in the air right now. They will have SOMETHING on the ground before Samsung's lawyers can get to court.

Re:OMG! (1)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#41302021)

It's a game of Chess. You never reveal you plans to your enemy. Apple knew they needed LTE for the iPhone 5, that is part of the reason they took so long to release it. They had to play head games with Samsung so they could put them in a stalemate.

If Samsung can sue over LTE, then what about iPad? (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301577)

The thing that leaves me confused is this. If any use of LTE means Apple has violated Samsung patents, where was Samsung when the iPad 2012 was released earlier this year? That includes LTE support, and it's been shipping for quite some time.

It sure seems like Apple would simply be using Qualcom chips, and Qualcom would not be happy about the potential for any vendor using said chips to be sued by Samsung....

How would a judge accept a ban on Apple LTE phones when an iPad has been shipping for a while without complaint?

Re:If Samsung can sue over LTE, then what about iP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41301697)

The patent in question probably specifically relates to phones and not to tablets.

Re:If Samsung can sue over LTE, then what about iP (1)

Minderbinder106 (663468) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301797)

How did Apple not sue Samsung over patents like slide to unlock and rectangle with rounded corners until after Samsung phones with these magical features had been out for a year?

Re:If Samsung can sue over LTE, then what about iP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41301839)

Wild guess but maybe the patent has something to do with the voice part of LTE - AFAIK iPad does not use voice over LTE, just data.

Re:If Samsung can sue over LTE, then what about iP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41302139)

Simple...The judge would ban IPads too.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly? (1)

onemorechip (816444) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301663)

Somehow I'm picturing HTC, Apple, and Samsung in a 3-way shootout. Hmm, I wonder which one will end up arguing with a chair 40+ years from now?

I am not a lawyer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41301671)

Wouldn't suing immediately over technology, (without any engineer doing any reverse engineering to verify the violation) because there is only one proper way to do something, be an admission that your patent probably isn't "non obvious to someone skilled in the art"

?

they may have a bunch of patents (1)

Chirs (87576) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301959)

covering many different aspects of the system. In that case they may be fairly sure that at least one of them is being infringed.

This is an outrage. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41301705)

How outrageous. This is basically an admission by Samsung that they got NOTHING. Suing Apple for patents on shit that everyone uses is a fucking outrage. I hope Apple lays the smackdown on Samsung AGAIN and shows them who owns their asses. First thing is they need to drop ALL Samsung components from every Apple product, hit them where it hurts AGAIN then their shareholders will come begging to Apple for mercy and Apple can just flip them off and buy them out for pennies on the dollar. Fuck Samsuing, you losers cant compete in the market so you use lawsuits. Pathetic.

Think different.
Think BETTER.
Think Apple!

Re:This is an outrage. (1)

macbeth66 (204889) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301937)

I was laughing hysterically at this and was about to laud a mod point on the post. Then I saw that it was an AC. Wait a sec...

This AC isn't being funny, he's serious. Oh Lord! We're really screwed.

Re:This is an outrage. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41302017)

How outrageous. This is basically an admission by Samsung that they got NOTHING. Suing Apple for patents on shit that everyone uses is a fucking outrage.

No different than what Apple did to Samsung.

I hope Apple lays the smackdown on Samsung AGAIN and shows them who owns their asses. First thing is they need to drop ALL Samsung components from every Apple product

Do you honestly think Apple will delay the once-a-year release of its new flag-ship product by SEVERAL months and lose substantial revenue just so it can hurt another company. HaHAHAHAHA!

Fuck Samsuing, you losers cant compete in the market so you use lawsuits.

Hmmm. This sounds really familiar. Oh, right. That's exactly what I said about Apple when they sued Samsung. Have a good cry for me, crybaby and let me taste your sweet Apple tears.

Re:This is an outrage. (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | more than 2 years ago | (#41302353)

Pathetic.

Think different. Think BETTER. Think Apple!

Let me guess, you own stock in Apple, don't you?

Apple finally managed to piss off Samsung (2)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301791)

It should be fun to watch, especially since I live in a country where Apple doesn't dictate what can and cannot be imported.

Re:Apple finally managed to piss off Samsung (1)

Sydin (2598829) | more than 2 years ago | (#41302119)

Can I come live in your country?

Leading job requirement (1)

onyxruby (118189) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301849)

I'm starting to think the leading job requirement for designing a cell phone is soon going to be the patent attorney. Once upon a time products were designed by engineers, not attorneys.

Payback is a bitch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41301869)

As the title says, Payback is a Bitch. I sincerely hope Samsung wins. I'm tired of seeing Apple play the part of the big bully by litigating to remove the competition. I pity Apple fans who'll be stuck at 3G but this won't likely happen. Instead Apple will probably come to a deal with Samsung, reverse the $1B lawsuit and drop any current suits.

Apple's plan all along (1)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301951)

I believe it was Apple's plan all this time with suing Samsung, so they would make a deal in the end to allow the iPhone 5 to use LTE, and drop all existing lawsuits.

Doesn't Samsung provide critical iPhone parts? (1)

unimacs (597299) | more than 2 years ago | (#41301991)

So they would be seeking to ban the sale of a product that contains their own parts, thereby limiting their own sales?

Patent exhaustion (3, Insightful)

the computer guy nex (916959) | more than 2 years ago | (#41302313)

Qualcomm already licenses the necessary 4G/LTE patents when making their wireless radios. Samsung has tried, and failed, in the past to also charge those who are purchasing the radios (in this case Apple). This is nothing but FUD.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?