
Samsung: Apple wouldn’t have sold a single iPhone without stealing our tech - zacharye
http://www.bgr.com/2012/07/25/samsung-apple-patent-lawsuit-documents-revealed/
======
hetman
What I think is fundamentally wrong with the way the patent system is applied
today is that in many instances it serves as nothing more than an artificial
monopoly only benefitting the patent holder.

The idea of the patent system in itself is actually quite elegant. Government
grants a temporary monopoly in exchange for the public disclosure of an
invention. Everyone wins! The person issued the patent can more easily profit
from their invention because they can work in the open. Society likewise
benefits, no more secret guilds locking up knowledge, now everyone can see how
it's done (and apply it once the monopoly expires).

As a social contract this really makes sense. The problem is that a lot of the
patents being thrown around today only really satisfy half of that contract. A
temporary monopoly is indeed granted, but the disclosure received in exchange
is worthless information. I say it is worthless because no one actually needs
to read that disclosure to figure out how to do it themselves with basically
no effort.

Of the large companies, it seems to me that Apple is one of the worse
offenders at exploiting the patent system in this way. Don't get me wrong,
what they are doing is perfectly legal, but that doesn't make it OK. It does
seem like Apple is following the legal rules and Samsung is thrashing around
attempting to break them (perhaps feeling they have little alternative). But
that doesn't mean that our legal system is perfect and cases like this will
hopefully help us understand how it can be fixed to prevent this kind of
exploitation in the future.

~~~
MartinCron
_nothing more than an artificial monopoly only benefitting the patent holder_

I thought that's exactly what patents are supposed to be. Inventors are
rewarded with a temporary artificial monopoly.

~~~
kbolino
At least in the United States, the express purpose of all patents, copyrights,
trademarks, and other IP protections is "To promote the Progress of Science
and useful Arts", i.e. for the _public_ good. The _vehicle_ used to achieve
this end is the granting of a temporary monopoly, but the monopoly itself _is
not the end._

~~~
MartinCron
Absolutely right. I was just trying to point out that the monopoly in this
context isn't some sort of dysfunctional side-effect, but part of the intended
mechanism.

------
SODaniel
I have to say that I am happy to see a major company saying what everyone is
thinking. It is truly absurd that Apple has the audacity to claim some 'we
invented it' right to any type of Cellphone tech or Tablet hardware.

ALL Apples success is derived from the UI/UX side and the fact that iTunes
laid the pavement for the 'app' concept.

Trying to bully the competition with purchased patents and lawyers will only
turn people off their products, and once the 'Steve Jobs effect' wears off,
they are nothing but another company selling cellphones and tablets.

And then, it might be time to look elsewhere for your 401k investment.

~~~
cbg0
> Trying to bully the competition with purchased patents and lawyers will only
> turn people off their products

Actually, I doubt it will, as very few people care about the rivalry between
large corporations. Apple even started suing mom & pop cafes that had the
apple logo or just the word "Apple" in their name, and even that didn't hurt
their image much.

~~~
SODaniel
Short term yes. Though I think we all remember Microsoft walking down the same
path and basically paving the way for Apple to become 'the underdog' in the
90s and it sure hasn't helped their public image.

~~~
ajross
Right. Ultimately Microsoft's perceived opposition to the evolving open
internet hurt it's perception among developers very badly. Where in the early
90's "everyone" wanted to work for MS and develop windows, by the end of the
decade everyone wanted to be working with web apps and JS and Linux. Fast
forward to today, and they're just another software company with no particular
technical leadership ability.

Right now, the Apple bandwagon is still really full, so it may be hard to
tell: but I'm seeing more smart hackers jumping off than on these days. In 10
years, how likely is it that Apple will be just another dinosaur milking a
legacy OS?

------
iamben
I'm so bored of all this. It's like watching my parents going through their
divorce - pretty much everything ended up with petty point scoring, and at the
end of the day, the kids are the ones that got hurt.

edit: And their legal representatives made a rather nice chunk of change.

~~~
nsns
Fitting analogy, but at least they did not fight over who gave you which
genes.

------
soup10
This case has nothing to do with patents and everything to do with Jobs/Apple
throwing a tantrum. There are so many overly broad and trivial patents that
companies have no choice but to ignore them. Standard procedure is to acquire
your own stash of broad and trivial patents so that other companies won't
bother getting involved in a legal battle with you.

This time though, Jobs thought Samsung and Google crossed the line in the
scope and extent to which android devices copied the iPhone and iPad. So he
started this patent war to spite them. I think everyone involved knows that
nothing will come of this except legal fees.

~~~
SODaniel
Strange conclusion considering Apple has already won several legal battles
banning the sales of competitor products on German/European markets.

Seems their 'fit throwing' is indeed working as intended.

~~~
ajross
Pyrrhic victories at best. So far none of the injuctions have had significant
impact on revenue for Samsung or Google. Android is already ahead in units
(though not app or media revenue, Apple maintains huge leads there) and
gaining market share. And Apple is burning goodwill at a staggering clip: just
look at the comment tone in these threads vs. the same ones a year ago --
people who used to defend Apple's behavior are getting quieter and quieter...

~~~
tedunangst
Well, there's little reason to defend apple when all it gets you are
downvotes.

~~~
ajross
Which is my point. I have a truckload of -10's from a year ago to show you
where I was expressing misgivings about Apple's behavior. The voting, like the
posting, is part of the zeitgeist. And it's moving hard in the "anti-Apple"
direction.

------
bryanlarsen
Linked article is basically just an edited copy of linked WSJ article:
[http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/07/24/the-apple-samsung-
trial-...](http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/07/24/the-apple-samsung-trial-what-
samsung-will-attempt-to-prove/)

------
runjake
Steal != legally licensed (from Qualcomm, et al)

Look, from the 20,000 foot view, I think Apple's (ab)use of the patent system
is pretty lame. But, this is just grandstanding on Samsung's part. If they
have a legitimate legal complaint, I'm sure they'll bring it up in court. And
then we'll see.

~~~
bluelu
You are arguing as if USA judges wouldn't favor USA companies over foreign
companies. Samsung can't win against apple in the USA.

~~~
nl
There are plenty of counter-examples proving that to be untrue (eg the CSIRO
WiFi patents)

~~~
anabis
The US made the problem worse by the pro-patent policy from 1980's. I also
think the US companies have an unfair advantage in trials (eg. optical fiber
Corning vs Sumitomo) I am hoping Apple, the crown jewel, getting badly beat
with patents will make US reconsider their pro-patent policy.

------
Steko
And then

[http://allthingsd.com/20120725/apple-google-warned-
samsung-a...](http://allthingsd.com/20120725/apple-google-warned-samsung-
against-copying-us/)

happened.

From Apple's brief:

 _In February 2010, Google told Samsung that Samsung’s “P1” and “P3” tablets
(Galaxy Tab and Galaxy Tab 10.1) were “too similar” to the iPad and demanded
“distinguishable design vis-à-vis the iPad for the P3.”

In 2011, Samsung’s own Product Design Group noted that it is “regrettable”
that the Galaxy S “looks similar” to older iPhone models.

As part of a formal, Samsung-sponsored evaluation, famous designers warned
Samsung that the Galaxy S “looked like it copied the iPhone too much,” and
that “innovation is needed.” The designers explained that the appearance of
the Galaxy S “[c]losely resembles the iPhone shape so as to have no
distinguishable elements,” and “[a]ll you have to do is cover up the Samsung
logo and it’s difficult to find anything different from the iPhone.”_

~~~
tensor
I sure hope that the crowning achievement of our era is not simply a dress on
a phone. This is not innovation.

------
i0exception
Apple is fighting Steve Jobs' battle. If it weren't for Jobs and his overly
bloated ego, we wouldn't have had these stupid patent wars.

~~~
hetman
That may be a bit simplistic, but it does make you wonder to what extent
Apple's currently chosen strategy was good business sense, and how much of it
was the desire of a man facing his own mortality to desperately protect a
legacy that would survive him.

To be honest I have no idea what kind of influence Jobs had at Apple in his
final year so the above is just musing out loud.

------
hkmurakami
I wonder if Apple is stepping into some really muddy territory with their
legal brouhaha.

While Apple's patents center around their HW and SW design, from what I
understand, Samsung, Motorola, et. al's patents include some fundamental WiFi
and communication patents that could be a huge counterpunch towards Apple.

~~~
SODaniel
I think it might get REALLY interesting when the 'old players' in the hardware
scene (IBM etc) pull out their books and start counter suing for tech they
developed when Apple were still flogging their Apple 2s

Remember, Apple as they sit today is a company with less then 10 years in the
market.

~~~
taligent
Sorry but what on earth are you talking about ?

Why would companies like IBM suddenly start suing Apple and for what possible
gain ? And Apple is nearly 40 years old with patents that extend across a wide
variety of areas given that they design their own software and hardware.

~~~
fpgeek
I agree that IBM wouldn't see much profit in opening up the archives just to
sue Apple. However, I suspect IBM has seen (and will continue to see) plenty
of profit in opening up the archives in order to sell patents to companies
more motivated to sue Apple.

------
ChuckMcM
While watching this battle, I always wonder what sort of covenants exist on
Samsung's supply agreements with Apple. I was wondering after reading the
article why Samsung doesn't just stop selling them parts, or raise the price
of the parts 100% or something like that. Seems like they should be able to
'earn back' all the money they are spending defending themselves and cause
Apple double pain. But they don't.

And the other thing I wonder is if any of Apple's behavior is hurting them in
the supply chain. If you make components that Apple uses and also make
products in another part of the company for resale, do you put language in
that Apple can't sue you? Or that you don't have to honor purchase orders if
they do? Something?

~~~
cube13
It's probably that way because Apple is buying so much stuff from Samsung that
losing the contract would be a major hit on their bottom line.

So Samsung can't really afford to lose Apple's business. Apple, on the other
hand, does have the freedom to switch suppliers.

~~~
jarek
> Apple, on the other hand, does have the freedom to switch suppliers.

Though it might be a hollow freedom if no one else other than Samsung can give
them the volumes and delivery dates they need. Mutually abusive co-dependent
relationship, oh boy.

~~~
msbarnett
Apple has enough cash on hand to literally pay upfront for TSMC or
GlobalFoundries to expand enough to handle Apple's needs. (Apple tends to pay
others to set up this kind of capacity rather than build their own because
they don't like being stuck with the long-term upkeep on these uber-expensive
facilities).

It wouldn't be cheap and it would hurt like hell while they got set up, but it
would equally cripple Samsung as their own component costs exploded from all
of the suddenly idle capacity in their own foundries.

It's enough of a nuclear war scenario that I can't imagine either side is
eager to pursue it.

------
kirillzubovsky
"Apple has admitted in internal documents that its strength is not in
developing new technologies first, but in successfully commercializing them" -
and that is why they WIN! Who cares whose technology came first. Samsung
couldn't execute and Apple could. If we had it the Samsung way, Nokia 7200
flip phone would still be the standard of mobile technology. _shivers_

~~~
tensor
You should care who invents technology. If you make laws such as patent laws
that work to suppress innovators (ironically), then you will be left with a
stagnant monopoly. You can see iOS starting to stagnate even now.

In the long view, the innovators, thinkers, and dreamers of today will win.
Companies like Apple will come and go as the markets collapse under the new
monopolies. Forward thinkers will replace them. It's the same story over and
over.

------
makmanalp
Does anyone have links to the mentioned internal documents from Apple /
Samsung?

------
salem
This is not news. The cell phone industry has a long history of petty non-
novel patents, such as for vibrating _and_ ringing at the same time. A phone
with a screen, a grid of icons and round corners sounds equally petty.

------
jinushaun
Read the article. Read the highlighted statements. 404 Apple stealing from
Samsung not found. This whole patent battle is idiotic.

------
kenster07
It's about time.

