
The Great Smartphone War - IBM
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/06/apple-samsung-smartphone-patent-war.print
======
ploxiln
This article simplifies things to the point of being wrong.

"Patented features such as “rubber-banding,” in which a screen image bounces
slightly when a user tries to scroll past the bottom, were identical. Same
with “pinch to zoom,” which allows users to manipulate image size by pinching
the thumb and forefinger together on the screen."

Jeff Han was doing pinch-to-zoom well before the iPhone was unveiled. I
suspect that anyone that had access to a low-latency multi-touch screen would
come up with it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqXPD7EHDto](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqXPD7EHDto)

"Under way since 2004, the effort constituted one of the biggest gambles in
the history of the company: a cell phone with full Internet, e-mail functions,
plus a host of unprecedented features."

Actually, there were many smartphones with all the iPhone's features, and
more, at the time it was first released. The original iPhone didn't have apps,
it didn't have MMS, etc. What it did have was a fully-capable browser, and a
well-done low-latency multi-touch interface. In any case, it really wasn't
about "features". Quality of implementation, yeah, features, no.

This article is just going to give lots of lay-people the wrong impression
about the history of the iPhone.

~~~
snowwrestler
People always bring up Jeff Han as a means of questioning Apple's multitouch
patents. His famous TED demo was in 2006. Apple bought Fingerworks in 2005, a
commercial multitouch company that was founded in 1998 based on research from
earlier in that decade.

~~~
XorNot
If Fingerworks didn't patent the feature before then, then it was public
domain by the time it was demonstrated.

Though frankly, it would still be a BS patent.

------
vitaminj
A few comments are saying that the author is too harsh on Samsung, but I get
the impression that he actually admires Samsung's unscrupulous, unethical
though ultimately canny business practices - in a similar way that one would
admire a drug dealer's ultra-efficient distribution system.

After all, the Samsung presented in this article enters into new markets via
wholesale IP theft. It then uses a suite of legal instruments to stall for
time in order to build internal technical capabilities and intellectual
capital. Samsung could stop here, but chooses instead to actually innovate and
improve on the products using the knowledge and experience base it has accrued
copying the product in the first place. It's a pretty shrewd, albeit
completely unethical business strategy.

~~~
sliverstorm
It's also a song & dance we have seen before. Many Japanese companies played
that game in the post-war era.

------
r0h1n
Sure, Samsung comes across as an utterly immoral and venal company in this
piece. Unless you object to the specifics of any of the allegations (which
seem based mostly on court papers), you can't fault the writer for being
"biased". There are innumerable ways to skin the "smartphone wars" story, and
Kurt Eichenwald has chosen one. Instead of some standard Apple-did-
this/Google-did-this/Samsung-did-this story, _he 's chosen_ to focus it mostly
on Samsung.

Another reason why Samsung's behavior might seem egregious to many
American/western HNers is because their economies have historically moved past
the stage where such wanton copying & corruption was acceptable. Doesn't mean
American companies haven't been guilty of equally venal - at times far worse -
practices. But it would help to view Korean/Chinese companies trying to "catch
up" on the global stage through relevant context.

Again, I'm not justifying what Samsung does here, just saying if they hadn't
done much of what the article lays out, we might not have had such a
competitive and disruptive smartphone/consumer electronics sector globally.

~~~
sremani
Let us not also forget that Samsung was one of the main suppliers for iPhone
and to an extent still is. The real loss is not for Apple in here, they are
just worried they could not monopolize the smartphone but the real victims are
the Motorolas and HTCs which did not lets say "push the boundaries", and Palm
and Microsoft which had a fresh take on Mobile OS. To say that Samsung is
cornerstone for today's diverse market is a bit disingenuous, there would have
been other players.

------
vfclists
Samsung seems to be a very 'American' company. Is there anything they do that
a lot of big American companies don't do?

Their only crime seems to be being big enough to beat an American company at
its own game. If Apple wants to compete it need to do better than competing on
'rounded corners'. Lets face it the iPhone's cachet is rooted more in media
hype than any meaningful reality.

~~~
jscheng
You seem to miss the article's points entirely.

It's not just in America. Samsung has been caught with the same shenanigans in
China and in Taiwan. The author is right about Samsung - it is the world's
most dirty, unethical, and corrupt corporation, by far.

~~~
vfclists
Are you serious? What planet are you living on? When did you get the idea that
big companies play nice?

So long as they can negotiate the fines that go with their misdeeds they will
play dirty, assuming they get prosecuted in the first place.

Why do you think the bankrupt TBTF banks are still up and running with their
bosses earning their obscene bonuses as usual?

------
robg
Has anyone had a good experience licensing to and/or working with Samsung? Any
good experiences that turned bad?

~~~
czhiddy
I've heard my chip designer friend mention in passing that the "Chinese wall"
between the Samsung fab group and the Samsung design groups is occasionally
porous.

~~~
robg
I've heard multiple bad experiences. No good ones.

------
g8oz
A very biased article - the only facts emphasized are the ones that support
the Samsung is an IP thief narrative.

~~~
Shivetya
Considering what was available before the iPhone debut, what was known in the
pipeline, and the comments made by some competitors about starting over, its
not hard to side with Apple. Given it took how long after the iPhone came out
for Samsung to copy it? Yeah, I said copy. Smart phones before it were
anything but.

~~~
jpollock
The iPhone wasn't the first capacitative touch smartphone. LG announced and
got to market before them. I don't remember if anyone else was earlier or not.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada)

~~~
MBCook
It wasn't the first, but no one remembers them because they didn't make a
difference in the market.

Quality of implementation is everything. Philo Farnsworth didn't invent the
first TV, mechanical TV systems existed before. But his was much more
_practical_ , a better implementation. Same with Edison's lightbulb.

I wouldn't say the iPhone was special for being the first touchscreen phone
(which as you pointed out, it's not). I'd say it was the first _modern_
smartphone.

~~~
anigbrowl
They sold 1m of the phones, but they concentrated on the Asian rather than the
US market. Apple had a more powerful brand to leverage than LG did, not to
mention experience as a platform provider.

~~~
MBCook
I don't think any amount of marketing would have made that phone sell or set
off a revolution the way the iPhone did. I don't think Apple selling that
phone would have set off a revolution the way the iPhone did.

I'm not saying it's a bad phone, but some anti-Applers like to minimize the
iPhone as "just the first touchphone"; there was more to it than that.

------
q2
I read on the web that Steve Jobs wanted to go for full fledged war on Android
...etc, no matter of costs involved. But that was back when he was alive and
both Android and ios are in fancy. It was an emotional burst. Steve Jobs was
known for changing mind, if different options arise on horizon. So if he is
alive, he may take different turn in this episode, rather than just fighting
and fighting in the courts.

But since it is well publicized that Steve wanted to battle Android at any
cost, Apple's current leadership may not have space to back down because if
they back down, share holders, press, loyal fans may feel as going against
Steve's last wishes...etc.

As article shows, Tim cook tried to caution multiple times, even when Steve
was alive. In that sense, it is "reluctant war" on behalf of Tim cook and my
guess is, he wants to settle the distraction/media glare and move on.

I read somewhere that Steve wanted Tim cook to make decisions not as what
Steve would do ...etc but based on current reality. Ordered penalty is just a
drop in Apple's revenue. But the constant media focus, important supplier
relationship with Samsung, Tim Cook's own reluctance (despite public
utterances), antipathy to patent fights in tech world means there will be
gradual burial of this issue over time and focus on battle through new
products/improvements.

I guess Steve also would do the same. He settled with Microsoft in the
beginning to avoid distraction and focus on new products. There will be short
term backlash but if they are right on roadmap, people see that as
masterstroke ...etc.

Note: This is my view/guess as an outsider based on what I read about Steve
Jobs, Apple ...etc.

~~~
IBM
It's a repeated meme that Apple should "stop litigating and get back to
innovating" as if the organization is incapable of doing both. I disagree that
Apple should back down. Tim Cook's advice was given at a time when Apple was
more dependent on Samsung as a supplier, and being in charge of operations
that was his concern. Since then Apple has diversified away from Samsung (and
continues to do so). It is most definitely not in Apple's best interest to let
Samsung continue as they have throughout their history, in terms of IP
infringement, without a cost. The alternative is to become a victim like the
many other companies mentioned in the article.

~~~
q2
At the end of the day, these decisions have to be taken at CEO level. Apple
may be big but it has only one CEO. This may not be the only issue Tim Cook is
paying attention. There will be several such issues in any big company.
Reducing some or optimization will always be an option at CEO level.

Vendor relations are always based on cost, resources and so I guess, they will
be in a flux always. So diversification away forever is not pragmatic choice,
given the reliability of Samsung so far.

I never mentioned not to fight but I mentioned not through courts. Smart guys
at Apple can think several options and I am novice there.

------
tdsamardzhiev
Stupid war between two stupid 99%-marketing-based junk-producing companies. I
really hope both lose the "war".

------
BorisMelnik
side note: the readability on vanity fair's blog is surprisingly awesome! also
didn't see any ads at all.

------
praetorian84
The lawyers feel like the only ones winning out of patent disputes.

------
hahainternet
This is a terrible article that glosses over Apple's history of exactly the
same sorts of actions including even taking the _name of their product_
without proper authority.

The Reality Distortion Field of 'ooh shiny' strikes again.

~~~
Decade
There's a major difference between when a revolutionary new product has the
same name as a defunct product line (Linksys iPhone, which got revived
specifically to cash in on Apple iPhone) or a local failing product line
(Proview Shenzhen's iPad), and when Samsung produces rip-off products that
have confusing similarities to Apple's successful product lines.

Apple certainly is a terrible company, and I think many of their patents
should not be patentable, but this is one area where I think Samsung is in the
wrong.

The most annoying part for me is that Samsung is winning with inferior
quality. The Samsung devices that I've seen have annoying bugs and low build
quality, and Samsung keeps stuffing Touchwiz onto their Android devices, and
their own UX development always seems gimmicky. But, hey, it worked for
Microsoft.

~~~
hahainternet
> Apple certainly is a terrible company, and I think many of their patents
> should not be patentable, but this is one area where I think Samsung is in
> the wrong.

For doing what? Producing a Smartphone? Using Apple's logic any majority
touchscreen device with icons is an infringement upon their patents/trade
dress.

~~~
shasta
For wholesale copying as many aspects of their phone as they did. Patent
lawsuits (at least in this industry) usually hinge upon whether some small
number of silly patents are infringed upon, when really those patented items
weren't particularly more innovative than any other other myriad design
decisions involved in the product. So our system tends to vastly overvalue
those silly patented things and at the same time undervalue the totality of
innovation in a product.

~~~
jolohaga
Why didn't Samsung select other designs from the menu of choices? The myriad
design decisions Samsung made produced an iPhone. That's copying.

~~~
fpgeek
Because the silly patents in question are so broad (at least on paper, before
trial) that they are practically impossible to not trip over.

Consider the "data detectors" (one of the patents Samsung lost on, IIRC). It
dates from the mid 90s and had nothing to do with smartphones until some
lawyer at Apple realized that it could be twisted to cover common features
like recognizing phone numbers in text messages so you can click and call
them. This one happens to be particularly egregious because it is the
smartphone equivalent recognizing email addresses and URLs email messages,
which goes all the way back to Netscape Navigator 2! (which is at least a
contemporary of the patent, if it didn't preced it)

Unfortunately, we all know how prior art and obviousness arguments usually
go...

------
amaks
imagine all that money they spent on lawsuits to be spent on research and
charity?

~~~
rayiner
>
> [http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303997604579242...](http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303997604579242393615502208?mobile=y)

Apple spent like $60 million on the Samsung litigation. Its a drop in the
bucket compared to how much they spend on R&D (50-60 times as much).

~~~
sroerick
Yeah, but the Samsung litigation is not the only patent affairs that Apple
has.

[http://www.androidauthority.com/google-apple-spend-
patents-1...](http://www.androidauthority.com/google-apple-spend-
patents-120824/)

~~~
rayiner
I've seen that article and its bunk. It takes too completely different things
and adds them together to say "Apple and Google spend $20 billion on patent
litigation." For example they count the Motorola acquisition as $12 billion
(IIRC) towards that amount.

------
o0-0o
The pattern this article shines a light on is that American companies continue
to innovate - while other countries can only follow. Imagine if no one copied
each other and spent all that time and treasure on innovation.

~~~
freehunter
Yeah, we'd all be better reinventing the wheel rather than improving on what
already exists.

