Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Sues Aussie Patent Office In Apple Suit, Apple Sues Back
schliz writes "Samsung has sued the Australian patent commissioner — and by extension the Australian Government — in an attempt to force a review of patents key to its global battle with smartphone rival Apple. The Korean manufacturer claims that the commissioner should not have been able to grant four patents used by Apple in its case against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1. The Government solicitor will face Samsung in court on June 25." Not to be outdone, niftydude points out that Apple has filed a motion in a California court to prevent Samsung selling its latest smartphone, the Galaxy S III in the US.
Apple called Samsung a doodoo head and is currently grounded.
Mutually Assured Destruction:
This is like the nuclear deterant, but without the massive death toll to keep it at bay.
They should all sue each other out of the market and let companies who are not such tools have a shot at the market.
What a strange outfit to sue someone
I was wondering how long this kind of thing would take. companies suing the patent authorities for granting f-ing stupid patents that are so broad that they cover anything.
@Random_Adam
Sometimes a sig doesn't have to be funny!!
letting the consumer/market decide? Isn't this what capitalism is about, the consumers choose based on price, quality, features etc..... We seem to be in some sort of meta capitalist market now where the courts decide who can buy what. "All working as intended" ?
Ultimately, lawyers and courts (when used for stuff like this) are overhead costs that are to be minimized. Don't get me wrong: the individual companies can come out better, but the customer always loses. All those lawyers are paid by the customers.
And I think we'd be better off without them.
I've never seen two children running so fast as when they both want to be first to the teacher to tell on the other. God I hope these corporations don't grow up, or we'll have a scene from Deus Ex. I'm call it now. One of these corps will order a hit on the HQ or R&D site and that'll be the end of this.
Apple claimed that the new phone, which is yet to go on sale in the US but went on sale in Australia last week, could cause it "irreparable harm," citing press reports that mobile companies had already sold more than nine million units in pre-orders.
Hardly surprising that Apple is worried, according to the Telegraph the Samsung Galaxy S3 has now overtaken the iPhone 4S as the UK's most popular phone.
This technology IP "war" is ridiculous. If motor manufacturers had the same intent there would only ever be one model with an IP registered "internal combustion engine" No other such engine would pass these idiotic patent laws. This is the greatest limitation to the development of new technology solutions. It is a fact that all new developments are built on previous knowledge. If this continues all development will stall, we might as well go back to the stone age.
I was wondering how you thought your upcoming iPhone5 stacked up against the S3. It's too close to launch to change it now, so these desperate acts speak volumes.
I've been a pragmatically happy iPod owner, but one of the reasons I bought an Android phone was Apples behavior wrt patent lawsuits. If they want to continue to shoot their own foot, so be it.
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
Isn't Apple that all the time sues Samsung or, (... put another Android phone maker here).
When it comes to tablets, I think Apple is the lead horse regarding lawsuits, but the entire technology industry uses the courts as a 'business partner'. Just look at all the patents that are bought and sold when troubled or failing companies need to raise money, or when large companies want to strengthen their positions against their competitors.
Would it mean that Apple is losing more and more ground compared to Android ? Patent justice is the last method when you have no more alternative to compete.
Apple has no other option but to lose ground to competitors. They were the first largely successful tablet on the market and grabbed a huge percentage of sales. As competition comes along Apple can't realistically hold onto its entire marketshare. That doesn't mean that they are failing or being driven out of the market, it's just the reality of the numbers.
Don't think that Apple can't compete just because they're spending as much time on legal maneuvers as they do on R&D. They're still the market leader in tablets, they're near the top in smart phones, and they're only going to branch out further into the new areas of consumer electronics. They may act like dicks a lot of the time but that doesn't mean being a dick and being competitive are mutually exclusive.
Am I the only one whose mind went straight to the fruit of the loom guy dressed as an apple when reading the headline "samsung sues aussie patent office in apple suit?"
Samsung is only dependent on iPhone as long as iPhone is a major player. If the Samsung phones take top spot, and Samsung have enough power to no longer need to make components for Apple, then guess who's screwed? What does bewilder me is that yes, Samsung has a contract to manufacture the components now, but how long does that contract last for? What happens when it's time to renew?
I work in Pharma, and our production site was bought by another company some time ago. We agreed to continue to manufacture the old company's products until they could transfer manufacture of them to other sites. It is looking like that transfer might take longer than initially agreed. But, due to the nature of our business, the Irish Medical Board might insist that we continue to manufacture the product for the old company beyond the contractually agreed time, because we can't have a stock-out of the product.
Somehow, I don't think there's a similar enforcement for the iPhone. If Samsung no longer needs/wants to supply Apple when their contract is up, I don't see there being anyone who can force them to continue. iPhone enters a time of shortage, Samsung S3 is out there on the shelves. What happens next would be quite interesting.
The USPTO in particular should be drowning in a sea of lawsuits by now. They'll only change their grant-by-default policy when rubberstamping idiotic obvious non-inventions costs them more than it earns them.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Those two should just screw and get it over with.
I really don't understand why they should battle each other when they are dependandt on each other...
Apple is far more dependant on Samsung than vice versa.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
The courts get fed up and ban every single mobile company on the planet from selling phones for a year. Then they can come back in to apologize for their shit and maybe they'll be allowed to play again.
Your business is making and selling phones, not preventing other people from making and selling phones. I'm no longer buying any electronics product of any company who is plaintiff in a patent infringement case.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...where governments do not interfere in things like this, and the big cellphone companies generally do not consider it worth it to litigate on points like this (even in the more progressive African countries that have stable judicial systems).
This means that cellphones are forced to compete on the basis of some of the most unheard of things, y'know, things line "price" and "features".
This is getting ridiculous. I know the lawyers are having fun and getting rich, but there's no way this system of intellectual property will hold for much longer.
Apple has no other option but to lose ground to competitors. They were the first largely successful tablet on the market and grabbed a huge percentage of sales. As competition comes along Apple can't realistically hold onto its entire marketshare. That doesn't mean that they are failing or being driven out of the market, it's just the reality of the numbers.
Don't think that Apple can't compete just because they're spending as much time on legal maneuvers as they do on R&D. They're still the market leader in tablets, they're near the top in smart phones, and they're only going to branch out further into the new areas of consumer electronics. They may act like dicks a lot of the time but that doesn't mean being a dick and being competitive are mutually exclusive.
Well, they are quite a bit away from Android in smart phones, market share wise they are neader to Windows Phone than to Android, tablet-wise the same will basically happen, it will just take some time => it's basically Apple against all other manufacturers, again, offering not one model, that by religious decree has to fit everyone, Android tablets offer all kinds of form factors. From cheap to expensive, from small (= oversized phones) to huge (>10"), different types of display technology (no pun intended, there are people that are partial to certain solutions), and so on. How Apple is meant to compete here, while their biggest part supplier is also their main competitor?
Well, the issue here is that Samsung learnt from Sony's downfall (which included beside other issues the interference between business units e.g. DRM crippled entertainment devices because Sony is also in music/movie business), and so Samsung business units basically run independently, so the screen producing division happily sells to Apple, while the mobile/tablet unit is battling Apple in court around the globe.
(Basically it's "if we are not hard on ourselves, the competition will be, and that will be even more painful")
What does bewilder me is that yes, Samsung has a contract to manufacture the components now, but how long does that contract last for? What happens when it's time to renew?
The question becomes whether Apple can find someone else who will give them a better deal. It is safe to assume that Samsung would sell the same parts cheaper to someone other than Apple, who is a direct competitor. Can Apple even find someone who is not a direct competitor from whom they can purchase parts?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Don't think that Apple can't compete just because they're spending as much time on legal maneuvers as they do on R&D. They're still the market leader in tablets, they're near the top in smart phones, and they're only going to branch out further into the new areas of consumer electronics. They may act like dicks a lot of the time but that doesn't mean being a dick and being competitive are mutually exclusive.
The last innovation they made in phones was the iPhone 3G. the 3GS, the 4, and the 4S have all been progressive updates of their existing invention, and as technology advances we're getting closer and closer to the point where the last generation is "good enough" and people stop upgrading. And I'd be reluctant to say that the 3G was actually innovative, since the appstore (which showed up with the 3G, and is the only real addition over the original iPhone) is something that had been done already in WinMo and Palm devices years earlier. There's a similar situation with tablets... they haven't actually brought anything new to the table since the iPad itself, and even that was simply copying/updating ideas that have been shown in media and other devices. In some ways, the iPad 3 is actually a downgrade over the iPad 2, because the battery doesn't last as long, and long battery life is the main selling feature of these devices.
Apple, as a company, hasn't actually come up with anything new in years, and the only thing on the horizon is a tremendously bad idea (integrating an Apple TV into an actual TV is *bad* because of the purchase cycle on TV's... it'll tank once the initial adoption phase is over, because people won't feel like replacing their TV a year later when the "updated version" hits the shelves). At least Samsung, LG, and Motorola are trying to innovate with their products... Samsung with devices like the Galaxy Note, LG with the developments they've been making in LCD and OLED technology, and Motorola with devices like the Atrix. Whether they'll ultimately succeed in the market is another question, but all 3 companies have brought new ideas to the table much more recently than Apple.
Whatever they're spending on R&D, it clearly isn't enough, because they're being out-innovated by a wide margin. When you can't innovate, legislate, I guess.
Not sure whether this is a stroke of genius or insanity on the part of Samsung's legal team, as it does create some potential conflict of interest issues for the other party, but as you say - "let's take the government to court" seldom ends well. It's also going to be interesting from the practical point of view; a lawyer is supposedly an impartial representative of their client, and it's kind of hard to be impartial when you arethe client. This is why you will quite often see law firms and members of the legal profession appoint an outside council to represent themselves when they are being taken to court themselves; the additional perspectives of an unbiased and unblinkered view can be worth paying for.
It's certainly a novel strategy though; has anyone actually sued a patent office in this way, and essentially accusing them of incompentence in the process, before? If it works here, it might be an interesting tactic to try in the other havens of patent insanity like the Eastern District of Texas...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
They would have patented the use of four wheels.
The point is that in other industries, we do not see the petty suits over similarities. Perhaps we don't see them because we aren't looking. But the only issue I recall even remotely similar to this in terms of pettiness is the patent on "rotating table inside of microwave oven." For the longest time, people had to buy little devices or turn their food by hand because the ones with rotating tables inside were too expensive and the patent holder's license was too high.
I suppose we are seeing SOME patent issues in cars now that I think about it. Toyota holds patents related to the Prius pretty close and it's literally keeping hybrids from being developed. Yes, there are other hybrids out there. Just not many and not as successful. It's not that people don't want them, it's that they don't all want the same frikken car!
Lawyers don't want this to end. The judges aren't tired of this either... perhaps some are, but certainly not the ones in East Texas. The other parts of government are too busy collecting contributions and donations, walking through revolving doors and anything except "bribery" to even consider reform or intervention.
We'll just have to be content watching goliaths tear each other apart and all that.
Finally, someone has sued the world patent offices for their culpability for the trillions of dollars per year caused by their dangerous incompetence in granting tens of thousands of completely invalid patents every year -- obvious solutions to trivial problems that were already invented. 99% of all software patents are invalid!
Apple uses like 30%+ of Samsung components in their iOS devices. Samsung is getting rich off of that fact and using the stuff they learned making iOS device components in their own line of Android components. Apple has been enjoying the relative supply stability, quality and reliability of Samsung parts.
One of these companies need to grow a set of balls and do one of two things:
If Apple grows a pair first then dump using Samsung parts in retaliation for all the cloning of Apple products Samsung has done in the past. Apple needs to end that partnership and work with smaller component companies who would be incapable of building their own competitive copy-cat products.
If Samsung grows a pair fist then stop supplying Apple parts because Apple is being a bunch of petty retards and focus solely on Android devices and supplying to other vendors who are not greedy self-absorbed bastards.
Seriously, this is the dumbest and strangest pairing of companies that both hate each other but still enjoy the reach-arounds they have been giving each other for the last 5 years.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
I hate this. Why are supposedly intelligent people unable to properly categorize and make valid comparisons?
iPhone is a device.
Android is a platform.
Is there a single phone family that runs Android that has more market share than the iPhone?
Is there a single model running Android that beats any single model of the iPhone?
Is there any cutting-edge model running Android that beats the iPhone 4s?
I actually don't know the answer to any of those questions, but at least the comparisons are valid. I have a feeling Apple comes up a lot better in the numbers when you ask meaningful questions.
Are you publicizing it? No? Then why are you asking meaningless rhetorical questions?
No, seriously, please keep it going - you're doing more to the current IP madness to a grinding halt than any companies before you... thanks for showing the general public how patently insane the current situation is...
stop feeding the lawyers and get on the the business of feeding R&D and competing on the merit of your product.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Wrong. Samsung makes more money by delivering parts to Apple than by it's own handset group.
A cool 6 Billion by Apple.
6 Billion in revenue in low-margin hardware parts vs 5.2 Billion in profit in a single quarter?
You're a fucking idiot.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Um, yeah, someone posted above that the Galaxy III is beating the iPhone in sales in the UK (which AFAIK isn't a totally carrier-dominated market).
Prior to that the Galaxy II was beating the iPhone 4s.
And, yeah, the Galaxy III beats the pants off the iPhone 4s. Nice new design, thinner than the iPhone, and 1280 x 720 pixels (Super AMOLED).
If the iPhone 5 comes out with lower specs than the Galaxy 3, expect the iPhone to wither except among fans. Prediction: they will delay the release until they can get something better than the Galaxy 3, but by that time Samsung will already have something better lined up.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Yeah, they tried that, as someone referenced above.
The problem is, the competitor they went to is LG, also an Android maker. That didn't turn out so well (quality problems), so they had to turn back to Samsung (haha).
There's also CMI, but they have quantity issues.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog