backtop


Print 15 comment(s) - last by michael2k.. on Oct 1 at 12:09 PM

More patent woes for Samsung

LG Display, Samsung Display, and Samsung Electronics are in the middle of another patent battle in South Korean courts. LG has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics alleging that Samsung is infringing on multiple LG OLED patents.  
 
LG specifically calls out several Samsung products as infringing including the popular Galaxy S III and Galaxy Tab 7.7. In total, LG Display alleges that a total of five Samsung products infringe on seven of its patents on OLED technology.
 
OLED screens are seen as one of the biggest growth sectors in the display market and competition is extremely fierce.
 
The lawsuit was filed in a Seoul Central District Court, and LG Display is seeking monetary damages and a ban on the sale of infringing devices within South Korea. LG issued a statement that read, "This lawsuit has been filed both to enforce LG Display’s intellectual property rights and promote fair competition."
 
Samsung has stated that it plans to consider a legal response to LG's suit if needed. Samsung has also previously alleged that two former employees, who now work for LG, stole OLED technology when they left and shared it with LG.

Sources: BusinessWeek, AFP



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By GotThumbs on 9/27/2012 11:22:36 AM , Rating: 2
.......Patent wars - Episode II




By kmmatney on 9/27/2012 12:09:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, screw Apple - this is obviously their doing. I've never bought an Apple product, and never will. Well, except for 2 iPads, 3 iPhones, 2 iPod touches, and several earlier iPods, I've never bought an Apple product. But I'll never buy another one - at least until the iPhone 6 comes out.


By Azethoth on 9/27/2012 9:33:42 PM , Rating: 2
Same here, but I also have MacBook Pro and way back had Macintosh+ and Apple II.

I cannot wait for the iPhone 6. Its gonna be magical with NFC and even more Siri! I just know it.

Also, tomorrow I plan on getting hysterical about some brand. Maybe Nike or something.


By michael2k on 9/27/2012 12:20:57 PM , Rating: 1
Why are you blaming Apple when it was Nokia that filed the first IP lawsuit in the patent wars?


By ritualm on 9/27/2012 12:32:42 PM , Rating: 2
As another guy pointed out to me when I raised that exact same note: Nokia had legitimate IP. Apple does not, furthermore Apple does not share/license its patents to anyone else except Microsoft.

Blame Apple.


By michael2k on 9/27/2012 2:20:56 PM , Rating: 2
How do you define "legitimate IP" that Apple doesn't have any?
While you might not agree that Apple has legitimate IP, the legal system has long held that they do in fact have legitimate IP.

Trademark, trade dress, and design patents have been legitimate IP now for longer than many people complaining about them have been alive.

Apple won a copyright suit against Franklin, and due to that lawsuit set the precedent that code was protected by copyright, in 1983. Are you going to argue that code isn't legitimate IP?

Later Apple threatened to sue Digital Research in 1985 over GEM 1.0; DR explicitly modified it's OS to avoid a suit as well as paid an undisclosed amount to Apple. Are you going to argue "look and feel" isn't legitimate IP?

Apple did sue Intel and Microsoft over QuickTime (another copyright suit I think) that ended similarly to the DR case; Microsoft settled in 1997 for $150m. Again, another code suit.

Apple sued both FuturePower and eMachines in 1999 over the iMac trade dress, for two different machines (eOne and ePower) and got injunctions and settlements. This was a trade-dress suit.

In 2009 Apple won a copyright suit against Psystar Corporation. This was copyright and trademark.

2011 is just one more of the same.


By TakinYourPoints on 9/27/2012 5:59:12 PM , Rating: 1
No, but you see, Apple...


By ritualm on 9/27/2012 6:01:14 PM , Rating: 2
None of the smartphone- and tablet-related patents Apple applied for and were granted were open to licensing for third parties. The only exception was Microsoft - Redmond entered a cross-licensing deal a long time ago, to both save Apple from extinction in the late 1990s... and to look less like a monopolist during its DOJ-vs-MS saga.

Apple vs Psystar - no contest. The latter wants to sell machines that run OS X, breaking a lot of legalities in the process. Apple tried letting other companies run its OS and that effort nearly killed the company. Also, Psystar itself was as sleazy as a Nigerian scam.

Apple vs eMachines - cloning the appearance of the computers and selling them in USA, where copyright and IP protections are stronger than, say, China = no contest.

Apple vs Microsoft - no contest, given Redmond in the 1990s was a ruthless, take-no-prisoners competitor.

Suing a company for copy-and-pasting the other company's software code without permission isn't the same as patenting things like "rectangle with rounded corners" and "swipe-to-unlock" and then suing everyone else for doing the same things.

Your argument amounts to "Apple should be allowed to patent software interactions and designs". Bull-freakin-poop.

michael2k from MacRumors forums... you're wiser than this.


By michael2k on 10/1/2012 12:09:20 PM , Rating: 2
Explicitly not true. They even displayed the presentation in court that Jobs and Cook used to try to convince Samsung, a third party, to license their patents. They also explicitly said, again in court, that they were discussing licensing said patents to other phone companies but that Samsung was first to be approached.

Microsoft also licensed their smartphone patents, as mentioned in courts, which could not have been inked in 1997 given that iOS and the iPhone didn't exist back then.

I'm strictly arguing the same thing as Apple vs eMachines; trade dress and appearance and trademark, not even bringing up the utility patents.

The court shows that the trade dress and appearance was worth $24 per phone and the utility patents were $6 per phone.


By Theoz on 9/27/2012 1:32:41 PM , Rating: 3
You people are morons. Lawsuit does not equal patent war. If I spent millions of dollars on R&D, got a patent, and someone ripped off my idea I would be suing too.


By Saldrin on 9/27/2012 2:06:09 PM , Rating: 2
And if some idiot spent millions of dollars inventing a rectangle with round corners heads would roll.


By tayb on 9/27/2012 2:52:34 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for mentioning Apple. I was personally extremely disappointed that the article didn't mention Apple. Even if the topic at hand has absolutely nothing to do with Apple in any way, shape, or form I still feel that Apple should be mentioned. I mean, what else are we to do if we can't have an anti-Apple circle jerk on every single article? Comment on the subject at hand? HAH!


limitless boundaries.
By drycrust3 on 9/27/2012 12:13:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
are in the middle of another patent battle

It is becoming apparent that, whereas once patents were all about easily perceptible differences, patents are increasingly involving smaller and smaller differences.
The question will become "Will patents stop when they involve quantum level differences?", and of course the answer is "No", which then raises the question of "Well, when?", and of course the answer is "No idea", meaning that people will be arguing over the differences that are beyond the smallest level of difference science has discovered, and expecting courts to make judgements with certainty in a field where certainty is ... uncertain.




RE: limitless boundaries.
By Theoz on 9/27/2012 1:51:00 PM , Rating: 2
Size doesn't matter. The difference is obvious --> no patent. Not obvious --> patent.


RE: limitless boundaries.
By ritualm on 9/27/2012 6:04:45 PM , Rating: 2
So Apple is allowed to patent blindingly-obvious things and everyone else cannot?

Cry harder.


"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki