decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Samsung, Apple, FRAND -- What's It All About? -- Samsung's Side~pj | 126 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections thread
Authored by: nsomos on Thursday, July 26 2012 @ 10:54 PM EDT
Please post corrections in this thread.
A summary of the correction in the posts title may be helpful.
Before offering a correction to briefs or transcripts,
please check against originals.

Tenk you veddy mush -> Thank you very much

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung - Apple comparison
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, July 26 2012 @ 11:29 PM EDT
My wife has an iPhone 4s I recently acquired a Samsung S II skyrocket.

As far as I can tell they are not all that similar in operation. The only
similarity I can see is the rounded corners with a metallic border (although the
shape and finish is not the same).

That said the iPhone is a far more elegant and intuitive design. The Samsung
fits my larger hand better, especially with the rounded back but button
placement is awkward and prone to errors.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

Design Patents?
Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, July 26 2012 @ 11:35 PM EDT
Has anyone in government ever stopped to think what dividing
the market up with design patents will do to competition? The
whole idea is mindless stupidity. I think what this really
means is that the government is for the money, not the
people. If you don't have money, the government won't help
you. Have lots of money, the government will write laws to
favor you. That is corruption.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung, Apple, FRAND -- What's It All About? -- Samsung's Side~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 26 2012 @ 11:55 PM EDT
I don't think there's much doubt that the Galaxy S looked a *lot* like the
earlier iPhones and that it was intentional, but Apple have never asserted
anything that made that look remotely illegal or that it's even their original
design. They did this sort of baseless crazy before against an early windows
release and just kept litigating until MS paid them to go away.

I'm inclined to not believe that Samsung's royalty request was as generous as
they suggest though unless it was also conditional on a cross licensing
agreement.

That's probably going to be one of the most important questions - whether
requiring a cross licensing agreement (what scope?) for FRAND patents is
"reasonable" (whatever that means) - and that's nowhere near as clear
cut as the Motorola demands were.

Patent quality is obviously a concern too, but practically none of the patents
I've seen on either side of these disputes should have been issued so...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung, Apple, FRAND -- What's It All About? -- Samsung's Side~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 01:41 AM EDT
PJ, while you say at the start that you don't have a side to take, this
article comes across as very pro Samsung and anti Apple. I'd be
interested to see your views on Apple's arguments too. I may be recalling
wrong but I thought Apple's arguments were that the frand patents that
use are sub-licensed by Broadcom who's chips Apple purchase and use,
so they already have licenses for these patents.

It's been a long while since I read that, so there's a chance I'm wrong, but
that was my understanding of why Apple wouldn't negotiate on these.

Myx

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic thread
Authored by: Tufty on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 01:42 AM EDT
Do some sowing and don't needle anyone

---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks
Authored by: Tufty on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 01:42 AM EDT
PYO

---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes
Authored by: Tufty on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 01:43 AM EDT
Keep them Come-ing

---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung, Apple, FRAND -- What's It All About? -- Samsung's Side~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 01:43 AM EDT
In terms of the "rectangle with rounded corners" design patent...

http://www.androidauthority.com/apple-samsung-patent-war-69575/

1994 video showing a demonstration of a working tablet device for use reading
newspapers, web pages, shopping online, etc. Form factor was a plain black
rectangle with rounded corners...pretty similar sizing to the 10" ipads,
with (resistive) touch screen.

In my pretty limited understanding of legal things, wouldn't this be a piece of
prior art that completely smashes the Apple patents?

[ Reply to This | # ]

100% of Samsung's profits...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 05:57 AM EDT
If Apple were awarded all profits (many beelions), would it
not be in Samsung's interest to refuse to pay, and to just
cease operations in the US indefinitely?

Would there be any way a US court could have jurisdiction to
enforce a fine if the "offending" company chose to just pull
out of the market entirely?

Of course I would have thought the likelihood of any of that
would be slim to none, but if a large company were minded to
push for patent reforms (which Samsung no doubt aren't),
that would be a very powerful way.

Going forward with international markets expanding, a
company forced to hand over all their billions of profits to
continue trading in the US might just decide it's not worth
playing any more.

Now perhaps they could be forced?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Really?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 09:36 AM EDT

Microsoft did research on mobile technology in the '90s and released a mobile
device in 2000.

It's rather disingenuous to say Microsoft was late to the mobile device market.

What I would like to know is why Samsung pays a royalty fee to Microsoft for
each Android phone Samsung produces? Why is no one outraged over that? Why
doesn't Google challenge Microsoft over that?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Really? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 10:21 AM EDT
  • Really? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 10:31 AM EDT
  • Really? - Authored by: PJ on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 10:40 AM EDT
  • Really? - Authored by: softbear on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 10:55 AM EDT
    • s/is is/it is/ - Authored by: softbear on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 10:57 AM EDT
    • Really? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 11:08 AM EDT
Why redacted?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 10:37 AM EDT
Replacing "Sony-like" with "[redacted]" seems a bit weird. A widely read tech website currently has a link to a PDF of the unredacted document: http://w ww.reghardware.com/2012/07/27/apple_snatched_sony_style/

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another Roger Fidler Design
Authored by: 351-4V on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 12:27 PM EDT
Poor Roger Fidler. Looks like he conceived and drew some amazing stuff. In the
ApplevSamsungFidlerDepo.pdf linked to above on page 19 of 33 (page is not
numbered though) there is a drawing of what looks exactly like a Western Digital
MyBook from a couple of years ago, the older MyBook with the big blue light
ring. You may recall seeing pictures of the MyBook in ads.

Roger's device is
drawn sitting near to the coffee maker so I can't say if it was supposed to be
an external hard drive or a toaster but it sure does look like the MyBook I
bought a few years ago. The page shows the date 1990 so that would make his
drawing about 10 - 15 years older than the release date of the Western Digital
product.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not suitable subject matter for a design patent
Authored by: pem on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 01:12 PM EDT
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

Rounded corners are functional. Without rounded corners you'll poke your eye out on it eventually. Or snag it on the sofa and damage the upholstery. Or something.

The lack of physical buttons is likewise functional. Physical buttons attract dirt and stop working. The whole world has been moving away from mechanical buttons for decades. My blender has touch buttons. The combination of touch buttons with the same capacitive array that powers the rest of the touch screen is a functional incremental improvement.

There is nothing her that is legitimately subject to a design patent. Perhaps Mark or PJ should do an article about the different kinds of patents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung, Apple, FRAND -- What's It All About? -- Samsung's Side~pj Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 01:31 PM EDT
Here are my 3 favourite trade dress claims by Apple:
- A rectangular product with four evenly rounded corners;
- A flat, clear surface covering the front of the product;
- A display screen under the clear surface;

Almost every smartphone manufactured falls under 2 of those
3 claims. It really shows something that Apple is not going
after everybody, but only the #1 smartphone manufacturer.

I also wanted to say thank you for covering this topic. It's
nice to see logical explanations and analysis without the
Apple hype machine behind it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung, Apple, FRAND -- What's It All About? -- Samsung's Side~pj Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 02:21 PM EDT
How can rounded corners be patented? even if "just" on a tablet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_%28writing%29

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not necessarilry so.
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, July 27 2012 @ 11:51 PM EDT
"Most litigation happens because both sides are somewhat right and somewhat
wrong."

I spent today in a mediation which resulted in my client paying approximately
50% of an unjust claim because the cost of litigation, the resources required
and the uncertainty of the outcome made it a business expedient to cut a deal
rather that fight what was clearly a specious claim.

This is the logic that many litigation trolls rely on.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

The F700
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 28 2012 @ 03:12 AM EDT
OK, so if the F700 was originally accused of being part of
the indiscriminate copying, but the accusation gets withdrawn
by virtue of the machine being older than the Iphone, how is
there even any possible case to answer? Can't Samsung just
produce the f700 filing and say 'they did what they're
accusing us of' and then get their own $24.00 (plus half a
cent) from apple?

[ Reply to This | # ]

St Apple's Immaculate Conceptions.. iPhone & iPad!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 28 2012 @ 01:30 PM EDT
After reading through about everything I can find, including
Apple's Bressler testimony in support of their contention that
all things Apple are by their very nature Sacred to the Lord
thy iGod! ;)

I took a look at some revealing prior art here and many links.
Some devices that actually went on sale. Somehow Bressler who
seems to be an expert only David Boies or Jacobs could find and
love, has determined that only Apple has a right to minimalist
Industrial Design. Being again like in Oracle's case willing to
give up his life (career) at a price! lol...

To hear Bressler, you'd think Steve Jobs himself had parted the
clouds of the Pure WHITE heavens above and the iPad & iPhone
fell into their immaculate white room untouched by prior art &
ideas. That they alone created perfection in a flat screen
tablet device. That was iNEW, sterile, minimalist and so
utilitarian and untouched by the ideas and inventions that came
before them, as to be Immaculately Conceived!

http://www.benwake.com/wp-content/gallery/tc1000/11070045-
small.jpg

Check out the HP TC 1000 he rails against compared to the
immaculately conceived original iPhone. You'll see that they
both have a bezel and both are flush with the glass on front.
But somehow he thinks your average jurist can spot that the
bezel is thinner is just a micrometer thinner... angled or
somehow Magically not there to the minimalistic extreme an
average jurist could tell the difference. But an average jurist
will be more like Samsung's Expert Mr. Sherman. Who Bressler
practically defecates on in his Apple support brief. Apple
doesn't think these common jurist aren't going to perceive
their arrogance with this jerk on the stand?

http://images01.olx-
nederland.com/ui/6/95/68/1274539267_95528768_3-Original-Apple-
iphone-3gs-32gb-Mobiele-Telefoons-Accessoires-1274539267.jpg

Apple and it's fans live in a fantasy world of Magical and
Revolutionary Hyperbolic Orwellian Doublethink. Somehow they
believe from inside this totally white abyss, lies perfect
minimalism and it belongs to them. Never mind that their
immaculately conceived iPad and iPhone are as impractical to
begin with as all devices are when only designed to look good.

Even today pure minimalism is better suited to existing only in
the white clouds of the heavens than in devices we use
everyday. Because Glass (no matter who makes it) has this nasty
habit of breaking in the real World. Proved by the repair rate
of all of Apple's iOS devices. Including the Bezel-less iPhone
4 & 4s and aren't the first totally flush glass display
devices. Nokia actually did that first. Where if you put it
face down on a flat surface, the only thing that touches is the
glass itself. But it's still impractical and iDivice screen
breakage proves it!

As far as Bressler using his Apple attorney's preparation, if
not their exact words goes, the Doublethink tank at Apple has
been working over time to defend the undefendable proposition
that they alone are the only ones capable of giving birth to
immaculately conceived invention. Purely by Thinking Different.

But...... by only Thinking That, doesn't make it so and it's
the juries that won't be contained by their White Room Thinking
and Stories that aren't going to buy it!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Media coverage observations
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 28 2012 @ 02:38 PM EDT
It has been and still interesting following these cases and
observing the one sided media coverage. Here are some of my
observations.

1. Samsung as the number one smartphone manufacturer
appears to be the underdog. Americans are more drawn to
underdogs.

2. Apple appears to be the spoiled rich kid trying to have his
way. Everybody knows that Apple has more than 100 billion in
the bank.

3. Like inflation, Apple's apparent success in litigation helps
lead to very high pre orders of Samsung's phone. Better get
them while you can, they are so good Apple is trying to ban
them, etc.

I wonder how much of Apple's "bad" quarter is due to the
lawsuit vice consumers waiting for the iPhone 5.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung, Apple, FRAND -- What's It All About? -- Samsung's Side~pj Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 29 2012 @ 12:26 PM EDT
Apple is garbage. Stop feeding this overgrown pig. Unless
you enjoy being raped by Apple and paying 4 or 5 times what
the hardware is really worth.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung, Apple, FRAND -- What's It All About? -- Samsung's Side~pj Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 29 2012 @ 01:35 PM EDT
Bans (for any kind of infringement) are harmful for the
market and the consumers. If courts are to accept the FRAND
argument, frivolous UI patents like a human gesture of a
swipe across the screen associated with an outcome (which
may not be novel enough to be granted a patent in the first
place) will be rendered more powerful to the extent of
imposing a ban on innovative products of companies whose
more technologically complex patents like methods for
communication will be rendered impotent (in the name of
being essential standard) so that large corporate interests
like Microsoft and Apple can have a freehold of the market
when all others get banned out of it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )