Samsung's Australian Peace Offer is Rejected by Apple
October 4, 2011 10:42 AM
comment(s) - last by
American electronics giant goes in for the kill on rival
from Australia, revealing that a lawyer for Apple, Inc. (
) had announced his company's decision to reject a cross-licensing offer from Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (
I. Apple Seeks Court-Enforced Smart Phone and Tablet Monopoly
Apple and Samsung are
currently number one and number two
, respectively, in global smartphone and in global tablet sales. While Apple currently holds the lead, Samsung last quarter posted over
three times the growth
of Apple, making it the world's fastest growing smartphone company. In a bid to try to slow its surging rival, Apple is going after Samsung in court [
] with lawsuits.
While Apple claims that it
approached Samsung prior to the lawsuit
with an undisclosed proposal, Apple has thus far refused all settlement offers from Android manufacturers, instead looking to ban their sales in court.
An Australian court is pondering whether to grant Apple a court-enforced monopoly on multi-touch, minimalist tablets. [Source: Island Glory]
Apple claims that it owns sole rights internationally to make a rectangular glass multi-touch tablet with a "minimalist" design (typically interpreted as a design having one or less face buttons). It holds multiple regional patents on a minimalist tablet design from 2004, which it is using to try to enforce this claim.
The Cupertino gadget maker also claims ownership of mobile multi-touch. In the U.S. it was
granted a patent on multi-touch
in mobile devices, despite the fact that Myron Krueger and the University of Toronto developed and published papers on virtually equivalent technology
almost 25 years prior
to Apple producing its
first multi-touch device
In Australia, where the case in this report is being contested, Apple holds three key multi-touch patents -- a patent on the manufacturing of a capacitive touch screen used in the iPad 2 and Galaxy Tab 10.1 (patent
), a patent covering selective rejection of inadvertent finger movements on a touch screen (patent
), and a heuristics patent used to correct a user's finger movements when scrolling vertically on a screen (patent
Essentially, Apple pieced together seemingly obvious or widely used techniques and sought patents on them. For example with the AU 2008258177 patent, it combines the common input filtering mechanism found in wireless mice, electronic steering, and more with a multi-touch input device and asserts that to be patentable. In AU 2007286532, Apple combines mild artificial intelligence -- a heuristic (experience-based algorithm) -- with multi-touch finger motions to provide superior motions.
Without input filtering virtually any electronic input device feels glitchy and temperamental. But Apple is in essence claiming that it owns exclusive rights to apply well researched techniques -- filtering and AI learning -- to multi-touch. Needless to say, this is a claim that its rivals, including Google, Inc. (
), find questionable; particularly given the body of peer-reviewed research on the topic published in the 80s and 90s.
If Apple succeeds in either of its claims, it will essentially be able to force Android smartphones and tablets in certain regions to adopt undesirable modifications -- for example glitchy touch interfaces and clumsy extra buttons.
Apple claims exclusive rights to apply commonly used software techniques like filtering or artificial intelligence to multi-touch input, despite the fact that most of these multi-touch technologies were developed in the 1980s and 1990s [pictured: Early multi-touch interface by Myron Krueger shows pinch zooming; source: Bill Buxton].
Samsung's lawyer, Neil Young, was frustrated with the slow pace of the court proceedings in Australia. He commented that if a ruling did not come soon, that his company's
Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet
"commercially dead" in the large Australian market
. He remarks, "If we can’t get a decision out by mid-October, there is no urgency."
II. Crucial Ruling May Decide Android and Apple's Fates
If the tablet indeed perishes, it would be Apple's second major victory over Samsung. Earlier Samsung
saw its tablet sales banned by a German judge
. Germany is Europe's third largest tablet market.
However, Samsung has somewhat of a victory under its belt as well. In a decision largely misinterpreted by many news outlets, Apple won
a single infringement claim against Samsung in the Netherlands
. However, that infringement claim only applied to one easily-removable feature within a single Android app, while Apple's broader claims were rejected. Thus Samsung is not expected to see significant tablet or smartphone sales disruption in the Netherlands -- a victory for the South Korean firm.
The most important ruling, arguably, for Samsung may come this week, when a federal judge decides whether to bow to Apple's request for a preliminary injunction banning all Samsung Android smartphone and tablet imports to the U.S. Apple is suing Samsung in
Northern California District Court
and claims that the the ban is necessary to prevent Samsung from "slavishly" copying its products.
A decision on whether to ban U.S. sales of Samsung's Galaxy smartphones and tablets could come as soon as this week.
If a ban were to be put in place Samsung's last hope would be to succeed in banning Apple's imports in its countersuits [
]. Such a dual-ban could force Apple to agree to cross-licensing out of self-interest. Apple clearly would prefer a one-sided ban, which would allow it to stifle Samsung's product lineup, but it remains to be seen if it will be able to have its way with the American trade court.
The Samsung ruling is very important to the market in general as a preliminary injunction could signal the first of several similar rulings against the top Android manufacturers. These rulings could give Apple a court-enforced monopoly in the U.S. -- or alternatively, be the final nail in the coffin of Apple's bid for market dominance.
Deutsche Telekom AG's (
) T-Mobile USA and Verizon Communications, Inc. (
) have filed amicus
("friend of the court") briefs [
] opposing Apple's request for a preliminary injunction stating it would have a catastrophic effect on the American phone market, where Android currently accounts for over half of smartphones sold.
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
10/4/2011 12:34:40 PM
you are thinking its black and white, and in marketing, it isn't.
problem with tech sites, is that everyone looks at things like a simple equation.
just because they stamped their name on it, doesnt mean they didnt have the intention. on the contrary, they fooled you. It isnt about them literally confusing a samsung product for an apple (have some original thought, please) it is about samsung being so simliar that it has a fighting chance.
Apple is what everyone recognizes. If your product looks so different, it is alienating. People dont always welcome changes like that.
be more open minded and understand what is really going on.
10/4/2011 1:24:14 PM
I think you need to be more open minded....
Consider back 10 years, when everyone had a flip phone. They were all similar, more or less. They flipped open, top part had a speaker with a small LCD screen, bottom had a keypad and a microphone.
Why didn't all the companies producing them back then sue each other? You want to know why? Because they knew they were all the same. What you really seem to forget is that you can't patent a look. Patenting a 'minimalistic' design gives you a monopoly, plain and simple. Your first retort will of course be, put more buttons on the front! Well, why should someone have to put more needless buttons on front? It's not needed. In fact, my current tablet has none. It's best that way. Plain and simple, it's a very easy way to corner the market. If that was the case, apple could file 2 patents, one with 'minimalistic design' and one with 'a fair design with numerous buttons'. This would exclude everyone from the market because there wouldn't be any designs that this wouldn't cover!
You say it's not black and white. You talk about it not being black and white. It really is. I understand Samsung makes something that looks similar, but it's a PHONE.
Lastly, on confusing apple products with samsung...I would think they would be concerned with confusing Fake apple products with apple products. Almost every phone out there has some manufacturer name stamped on the front of it. So, that being said, since when did "Samsung" turn into "Apple"? Oh, I know, it's the new Iphone Samsung 50004GSLTE!
Was that ridiculous enough for you? Probably not. Go back to making love with your fruit.
10/4/2011 4:38:50 PM
You are still focusing on stuff you can hold, aka a phone. If you don't want to think higher than that, well, then best of luck buddy.
flip phones - no one had a dominant position like Apple. No, not the phone itself, but brand recognition. You cant manufacture that. There is a reason engineers don't make ads.
when you create a brand the way they did, and their stock proves it, or selling a phone with less features out the wha-zoo, you protect it. Whatever it takes.
The 80s are over bird boy.
10/4/2011 8:58:47 PM
Having spent some time @ Moto, I can tell you that the microphone in the flip part is protected by a Moto patent, and NOBODY was allowed to do the same for free. There are a lot of phones out there which have a flip part with no electronics inside because of it :) (they have the mike next to the hinge, and it works well enough).
"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer
Apple Claims Steve Jobs Tried to "Negotiate" With Samsung, Prior to Suits
September 30, 2011, 4:50 PM
T-Mobile Joins With Verizon in Opposing Apple's Anti-Android Lawsuits
September 29, 2011, 8:16 AM
Report: Apple May Switch to Inferior, Pricier Chips to Spite Samsung
September 27, 2011, 10:03 AM
Verizon Sides with Samsung in Apple Legal Dispute
September 24, 2011, 6:15 PM
Samsung to Seek Sales Ban on iPhone 5
September 19, 2011, 10:03 AM
AT&T CEO Says Carriers Can No Longer Foot the Bill for High-End, Subsidized Smartphones
December 11, 2013, 10:55 AM
IPotty and iPad Tot Seat Ignite Controversy: Brilliant or "Destructive"?
December 10, 2013, 6:22 PM
Quick Note: Sleek White Second-Gen Nexus 7 Goes on Sale for $269
December 10, 2013, 4:55 PM
Illinois Considers Ban on Google Glass While Driving
December 10, 2013, 10:21 AM
EU to Nokia: Don't Even Think About Becoming a Patent Troll
December 9, 2013, 10:29 AM
Apple's "iBeacon" Tracks Customers Inside Apple Stores for Enhanced Shopping Experience
December 6, 2013, 11:26 AM
Most Popular Articles
Experts: Masturbation Prevents Cancer, Diabetes, Insomnia, and Depression
December 6, 2013, 2:01 PM
Hackers Nab 2 Million Login Credentials from Facebook, Gmail, Twitter
December 5, 2013, 1:00 PM
Thieves Steal Truck with Cobalt-60 Onboard in Mexico, Will Die "Without a Doubt" from Exposure
December 5, 2013, 12:04 PM
Man Arrested for Using 5 Cents Worth of Electricity to Charge Nissan Leaf at Middle School
December 4, 2013, 8:00 PM
U.S. Navy Fires "XFC" Drone from Underwater Submarine
December 6, 2013, 2:35 PM
Latest Blog Posts
Justice Leaks Details of Next HTC One Two Flagship Phone
Dec 5, 2013, 4:04 PM
Global Cyber Espionage Concerns Reveal Growing Cyber Armies
Nov 29, 2013, 11:04 AM
Is The Period Becoming an Expression of Anger?
Nov 26, 2013, 2:02 PM
NSA and Congress -- You Will Never Kill the Constitution, It's an Idea
Nov 10, 2013, 2:00 PM
AT&T Explores $100B+ USD Deal to Acquire Vodafone's European Operations
Nov 4, 2013, 7:34 AM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information