OSNews

Not really. When Apple gets the Nortel patents no one will be able to build a 4g phone without tripping over one of those.

Ultimately though, Apple's goal here is to confuse, frustrate and generally distract Samsung. Neither Apple or Samsung can really stop each others devices from actually getting to market for a substantive length of time.

A) If Apple and the other bunch gets them (see Novel patent scenario)
B) Samsung will have the license from Microsoft and Apple will have to STFU
C) They will not actually own the patents, they will co-own them

(a) Google pretty much guaranteed that by buying up a bunch of patents from the other guys and giving them to HTC. I actually think it was a given anyway because so much money was at stake.

(b/c) The terms of the Nortel deal are that Apple owns the 4g patents and the others get a non-transferable license so unless Samsung buys RIM (which is not as wacky an idea as it seems) their not going to have license to them. They will have a license for them for Microsoft Windows based phones obviously.

Share the link to the text of the Nortel deal, if you please.

[Speaking of tripping ...]

Based on what? The only way Apple can use them is in defending itself against being sued for patent infringement. You still don't understand how that works, do you?

===
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/082211-oin-wants-to-hinder-no...

In April, the DOJ limited the sale of Novell's patents by making the patents subject to both the GPL and the OIN license. This essentially converted them into defensive patents only. Patents covered by the OIN cannot be used to collect royalties.
===



Samsung doesn't seem to be too confused. Maybe a little too patient. Apple seems to be confusing and distracting you unless your comments don't actually reflect your thinking and are just a smokescreen/astroturfing gambit. If you aren't disinforming then you are sadly confused.

I sadly know more about patents then I care to admit.



You understand this passage is about Novell not Nortel right?

In the Nortel case Apple would own the patents outright. If the DOJ places restrictions on the Nortel deal those patents won't be worth $4b and there will lots of pissed off people who hope to recoup their losses from the Nortel bankruptcy.

I suppose it's possible the DOJ would acti in the public interest like this. I doubt it though.

[Speaking of tripping ...]

In April, the DOJ limited the sale of Novell's patents by making the patents subject to both the GPL and the OIN license. This essentially converted them into defensive patents only. Patents covered by the OIN cannot be used to collect royalties. "

This is great information but you do realize that Nortel and Novell are two different companies (and two different pools of patents) right?

Jackeebleu

BBC Article 22 Jul
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14238741

"Another Apple target is Samsung Electronics. The South Korean company has countersued, claiming that Apple is infringing some of its 28,700 patents held in the United States alone. "

"A top Samsung executive told me that more than 50% of an iPhone's components (by value) are made by Samsung. Several hundred Samsung engineers work at Apple's headquarters in Cupertino to help develop the next iPhone."

One thing BBC got wrong and need more analysis: Florian Mueller isn't patent expert, he is only a pretender.

USA! USA! USA! USA!

... this is not the WWF^H^H^H WWE

Yes. Especially now that it is Apple that is on the defensive.

/sarcasm

Block everyone from breathing, since you might breathe in a patented chemical....

Edited 2011-09-19 23:37 UTC

What market share does Apple have in S. Korea?

A lot of consumers love home (country) brands. For example; the PS3 and Wii (both Japanese products) far outsell the Xbox 360 (N. American) in Japan (I think it's still true). Does Apple have a significant market share in S. Korea to really be upset about losing the market completely?

I could imagine the PR black eye would be worse than the financial loss of the S. Korea market.

Edited 2011-09-20 05:08 UTC

I believe Apple's marketshare in S. Korea is virtually non-existent. The reason being that doing online banking or really much of anything online there requires MSIE because of choices made over a decade ago regarding encryption. The current system basically boils down to "you can't use the encrypted S. Korean parts of the internet (e.g. anything concerning money) without a key issued by the government" - unsurprisingly the government really likes that kind of power.

I think there is a pretty big Apple store in Seoul, but it can't be anything other than a prestige project.

So how do you run IE on an Android phone? You don't.

Yes, and conversely, should there be perceived bias in Korea against Apple, how do you think that will play at the home of Apple in the US? Which market do you think matters more?

To Samsung? South Korea (and Asia).
To Apple? U.S.

That's true, no doubt.

However, if you look at it from Samsung's perspective: What is more valuable? Kicking Apple out of South Korea and getting kicked out of the US yourself, or the status quo?

Uh... exactly what did Samsung steal from Apple?

Perhaps Samsung fighting back is finally the beginning of this patent apocalypse that some of us have been wishing for. The tech world going on the legal variant of a pillow fight until regulators intervene and put some reason in this patent madness.

I too despise wasteful patent wars. In this case, from a government point of view, I consider regulation an expensive patch on a self inflicted wound. Just considerably narrow the portfolio of what patents can actually apply to in the first place.

Rather then waste money on a system handing out government granted monopolies (patents by definition) to every little spark of the imagination, limit the scope of what these can be applied to considerably, and not without a great amount of caution. Then you don't have the two-fold problem of granting monopolies, then enforcing regulation to counter the effects these monopolies produce. This saves a lot of money, on the government side of things and otherwise, but even more importantly, it obsoletes the court-oriented cluster f@#$ that has resulted from a severely permissive patent system. A system that ultimately results in more lawyers, making them richer at the expensive of the rest of us - with little real value produced.

Now frankly, I'm not sure if this is likely to happen, because of the considerable power of corporate lobbying/protectionism, but I do find it to be a much more appealing approach.

Edited 2011-09-20 19:37 UTC

It's a design patent, not a technical patent. WTF. How complicated is it? If you copy the look of a competing product almost exactly, you can get called on it. If you start selling a professional computer tower that happens to look just like the Mac Pro, do you think that should work too? How about a Gerrari that looks just like a Ferrari?

The patent system is a broken joke, about to get even worse in the US, but that doesn't make trade dress violations part of that.

After looking at this comparison between the Samsung tablet and and the Ipad, I have to conclude that you are correct in saying that Samsung copied Apple: http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/21773_Samsung_Picture_Frame_v_iP...

Oh... wait that is photo of the Ipad next to the Samsung digital image display, which was released four years before the Ipad was first announced.

Well, of course that Samsung design doesn't count, because, although the Ipad looks just like it on the front, the Samsung is just a digital picture display. If Samsung had put computer electronics inside that item, then we could safely say that Apple copied the external look of Samsung device... er... uh ...never mind.

Even the Crunchpad prototype and final design shamelessly copied the Ipad: http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-prototype/

Oh, wait... this article is dated a full six months prior to the first announcement of the Ipad.

What I really hate is when non-electronics companies try to steal a concept for a design and claim it as their own. Here is such an example, the Knight-Ridder tablet concept: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI

Such a blatant ripoff of the Ipad design should not go unpunished, and Apple should... um... Sorry, but it seems that this video was made in 1994 -- sixteen years before the Ipad was first announuced.

Wait, remind me, who is doing the copying?

" If Samsung had put computer electronics inside that item, then we could safely say "

We could then safely say that it would have had a bunch of buttons and lights on the frame prior to Apple designing tablets without them. The design rights Apple has aren't for a picture frame, it's for a tablet.

"Even the Crunchpad prototype"

Even mockups of what the unnamed-at-the-time rumored Apple tablet might look like looked like that. Which was an extension of the iPod touch / iPhone design. Remember the 'it looks like a bit iPod touch' comments? Do you remember the ones where people said 'it looks like a big Samsung media player'? Yeah, me neither.

"Sorry, but it seems that this video was made in 1994 -- sixteen years before the Ipad was first announuced."

Wow, and if Samsung made a tablet that looked like that one, there wouldn't be a problem. That one has a lumpy bit that sticks out on the backside near the top center and has a 'chin' - the thicker frame on the bottom edge. That wouldn't actually count as looking the same in terms of people confusing it with an existing product.

"Wait, remind me, who is doing the copying?"

http://deviceguru.com/files/gtab-unboxing-04.jpg

Certainly, I'll be happy to: That would still be Samsung in this case. Look at the iPad unboxing above for an example... oh, sorry, looks like that's Samsung's pad including 30-pin connector for good copying measure.

That's an interesting conclusion in light of the fact that a lot of the prior non-Apple art has rounded corners and a shiny, black, flush bezel, with no buttons/lights on the bezel. Even if one merely looks at the previously posted links of the Knight-Ridder tablet or the Samsung digital image display -- no buttons nor lights show on the bezel. Not that there is an advantage (or disadvantage) to the lack of lights/buttons on a bezel.

However, you seem imply that buttons on the bezel are a disadvantage. If so, the Ipad is an inferior design to the Knight-Ridder tablet and to the Samsung photo display, because the Ipad has one of those horrible buttons on the bezel!

The Crunchpad shown in the article seems to have a few small lights on its bezel and the later Ipad doesn't. Not sure how that would make the Ipad "a whole new tablet pardigm." At any rate, the final version of the Crunchpad (which was released before the Ipad) didn't seem to have those lights on the bezel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JooJoo_01.jpg



So, it's okay that Apple took the Samsung picture frame design and merely stuffed-in different electronics, and then got "community design" protection on the copied Samsung enclosure. I see.



Wait a second, isn't it the Apple fanboys who are constantly suggesting that what is more important than innovation is who was first to market -- not who was first to show a concept.

Even so, I don't see any links to Ipad mock-ups showing dates.

Furthermore, if Ipad mockups appeared when the final Crunchpad prototype was demoed, then, obviously Crunchpad mockups preceded those of the Ipad. Sorry, but the Crunchpad beat the Ipad to the punch.



I don't remember those comments.

Nevertheless, the Knight-Ridder tablet and the Samsung digital picture display both preceded the Ipod Touch, and they both had rounded corners and shiny, black, flush bezels.

In addition, the LG Prada had rounded corners and a shiny, black, flush bezel, and that phone was winning design awards months before the Iphone was first announced. So, the Prada (with its rounded corners and a shiny, black, flush bezel) prececed the Ipod Touch by a full year!: http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/12/15/the-lg-ke850-touchable-chocol...



I am not sure to what is being referred as the "lumpy bit."

However, I gather that the second assertion is that a vertically non-symetrical bezel makes the Knight-Ridder tablet completely different from the Ipad, which has a symetrical bezel.

Yes. The Ipad's symetrical bezel is a brilliant, revolutionanry advancement in tablet technology. That's the kind of innovation that makes Apple so great! It's the sort of detail that makes the "Apple difference!"

Unfortunately, the Samsung digital photo display and the final released version of the Crunchpad (and about a zillion previous tablets) featured symetrical bezels.

Sorry -- Apple didn't invent symetrical bezels.



Ah, yes. Another revolutionary Apple invention -- white boxes! Samsung is shamlessly copying Apple by using a white box!

Not sure what is meant by the mention of the 30-pin connector.

Remember the days when computer technology was based on open standards and interoperability was still important? But now, including a compatible connector is "copying" (though I'm honestly surprised you had the restraint to not write "stealing" instead).

And this is the "future of computing" that iFanboys are endlessly bleating about? Funny, it sounds more like the ancient history of computing. Apple's approach with the iProducts is nothing more than an early 80s-style closed, single vendor computer system - combined with an AOL-style walled-garden for software and content delivery, thoroughly sanitized and dumbed-down to appeal to the very lowest common denominator.

The image you linked proves the absurdity of Apple's case. It's a screen. that's it!
Is this copying Apple?
https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/etch-a-sketch-121.jpg?w...
The argument of community design is retarded.

That is why my relationship with Apple is a love-hate one.
While I can't think of a laptop better than my MacBook Pro (great hardware + a fine OS), I wish that Mac prices (especially upgrades) were more reasonable, and that they gave up this patents madness.

That link always seems funny to me, since the ultrabook coming from Lenovo next month will be USD 800.

It's way too early to tell.



Oracle IS going to win. They not only have a case but they have a smoking gun (emails) which proves WILLFUL violation of Oracle's patents. I wouldn't be surprised if Oracle gets a $15 royalty per Android device sold. Which pretty much eliminates the price advantage that Android enjoyed, and allows other IHVs to diversify away from Google-Motorola to Windows Phone 7, etc.

Edited 2011-09-21 01:58 UTC

Let's put it simply : take someone who wants a decent $500 laptop for office work and web browsing. He can buy it from Acer, Asus, etc... He can't buy it from Apple. Why ? Because Apple only make high-end laptops. Why ? Because they make more money this way. Why ? Because Macs have a monopoly on a number of things so people will buy their expensive laptops even if they actually wanted something less expensive.

Now, from the point of view of those who just wants an Apple laptop because they have a cool OS, it just means that yes, Apple hardware is ridiculously expensive.

Upgrades? What upgrades? You mean the $30 upgrade cost for Lion? That? You want that cheaper? Really?

No, I mean hardware upgrades when you buy a Mac. Configure a Mac Pro and see for yourself.

Of all the machines to pick on upgrade prices, you pick the Mac Pro? It's the ONE machine they have that is totally meant to be upgraded by the end user.

I've slapped 4 drives in, 24GB of RAM, and extra DVD burner, an eSATA card... it's MEANT to be opened up and reconfigured. If you don't want to do it, fine, pay Apple's prices, but that's really just not the machine to pick as an example.

To be fair, you're usually better off buying RAM or drives from someone other than the large manufacturer anyway if you're looking for the lowest price on upgrades, whether you're talking Apple or Dell or whoever.

Suggest me what to do if you want a better CPU. Their cheapest upgrade, quad-core, from 2,8 GHz to 3,2 GHz costs 403 Euro.

And pay billions to apple in damage ? Since it is unlikely that the contract contains a compensation clause in case one of the side is breaking the contract.

So, what is Apple going to do for a supplier when the current contract runs out? Who do they go to that has Samsung's R&D and manufacturing muscle?

Well for the CPUs, they're going to also use TSMC(*), for the other components, I don't know, they'll probably still use Samsung for a while: it's co-opetition time after all..

*:
http://9to5mac.com/2011/09/15/digitimes-tsmc-confirmed-as-apples-ne...

Apple Apparently Ditched Samsung for TSMC Chip Fabrication

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/apple_apparently_ditches_sam...

The lesson may be that the Western countries that innovated allowed others to copy their products and use what was essentially slave labor to undercut and hollow out their own economies, all while their political leaders took bribes to keep their trade agreements in place. Never wanting to be outdone, the eastern powers were brought down in a war fought between India and China purportedly over water resources that was secretly planned in advance to reduce the huge surplus of males in their populations due to their policies of turning a blind eye to female infanticide.

Luke McCarthy said: Nobody is allowed to make anything.

Informative comment - thanks for participating, it makes us all much better informed.

Peter

Edited 2011-09-21 03:58 UTC