Samsung to Apple: Let’s Make a Deal

| News

Samsung is hoping to end it’s patent infringement battle with Apple in Australia early by offering the iPhone and iPad maker an out of court settlement. Currently, Samsung is facing the possibility of an injunction blocking the sale of its Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in the country, but working out a deal with Apple would prevent that from happening.

Samsung wants a patent deal with AppleSamsung pitches patent settlement deal to Apple

Details of what Samsung proposed to Apple aren’t public yet, according to the Wall Street Journal. Whatever the electronics maker is proposing, however, seems to at least have Apple’s interest.

Stephen Burley from Apple’s legal team in Australia told the court that Samsung’s “inconvenience would be diminished and we would be comforted [by the deal].”

Apple and Samsung have been locked in a legal battle over patent infringement claims for several months. Both companies have alleged that the other’s mobile devices use patented technologies without proper licensing, and have filed lawsuits against each other in the U.S. and other countries.

A German court recently upheld an injunction blocking the sale of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in the country. Samsung has filed an appeal in hopes of overturning that ruling.

Apple was also awarded a temporary injunction through a Dutch court blocking the sale of some Galaxy devices in the European Union, and Samsung has agreed to postpone sales of its Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in Australia until the end of September, but now is facing the possibility of an injunction in that country, if it can’t work out a deal with Apple soon.

Sign Up for the Newsletter

Join the TMO Express Daily Newsletter to get the latest Mac headlines in your e-mail every weekday.

Comments

Nemo

Apple’s counteroffer to Samsung:  Quite infringing on our IP, and we will stop suing you.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

El Reg got the money quote from Apple’s presumably heavily tatted and javelined barrista:

If that statement sounds a little strong, here?s what Apple?s lead barrister, Stephen Burley, said: “Once the Galaxy Tab goes to a purchaser who invests and purchases apps on the Galaxy Tab, we have lost them forever in relation to apps and interactivity because they will then be Android people.”

Kinda like how I lost Cindy Crawford to Richard Gere back in the day.

geoduck

Interesting. I wonder if somebody at Samsung saw the news about Psystar yesterday and realized that they could lose and Apple doesn’t take any prisoners.

RonMacGuy

Always amazing how bitter the losing side of a lawsuit becomes. Well, if not Samsung here, at least their supporters…

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

On further review, Apple’s Barrista Burley shows an even bigger weakness with Apple’s approach to mobile. Google makes its best apps available to iPhone customers, but Apple does not make its best apps (or any for that matter) available to Android customers. And so Burley justifies Apple’s request for an injunction with the fact that Apple doesn’t even bother to engage that market. It’s kinda funny watching a weasel represent a rat.

Tiger

Apple is still first and foremost a hardware maker that has an OS and an app platform.

Google is a software maker that has an OS and an app platform.

The primary difference is that Apple is making the BULK of all profits in the mobil world because they actually sell something that is the cornerstone for the rest of the market. Google is missing that component by relying on 2nd and 3rd party handset makers. It is their choice, and I’m not saying one is right or wrong. It’s just a different business model. I think both can make money in fact, because one platform will never be the choice of all customers. Hence, the word choice.

Now, it would behoove Apple and Google (hint to both companies here!!!) to settle this series of disputes, quit spending money on lawyers, and find a way to play nicely with each other. Or at least coexist…..

ilikeimac

I expect Apple would be willing to settle for some kind of cross licensing deal on technology patents, but in the design patents I reckon Apple will accept no less than Samsung redesigning their tablet, phone, and trade dress to look a lot less like Apple’s products.

Ross Edwards

On the first day of law school, my Contracts professor impressed upon us in a near-30-minute rant, that you never, ever, ever want to take a civil case to court.  No matter how strong you think your case is, no matter what you think you can do in the context of litigation.  You never want to do it if there is a chance of settling the dispute any other way.  Why not?  Because once pleadings are in and jurors are sworn and the stenotype is ticking, YOU MIGHT LOSE.

In fact, my professor said, if a civil case ends up going to trial, somebody has screwed up.  Either a litigant’s counsel has made an inaccurate assessment of the probable outcome, or a litigant has disregarded (for whatever reason) his or her counsel’s accurate assessment of the probable outcome, or one of the two cases above occurred but one or more litigants was forced forward by external factors.

Psystar is a perfect example.  No doubt Psystar’s counsel delivered an assessment that defeat on the merits of the case was likely.  Psystar then disregarded that assessment because they had no choice but to bet the company on a positive outcome.  Company death by court leaves them in the same position as company death any other way, and Psystar had no other way to be free of Apple’s claims.  They screwed up, but it was the only move they had available to them.

Apple’s office of corporate counsel probably feels like it has balls the size of Mercury right now, and yet Apple will still settle if Samsung’s terms are realistic enough.  Because otherwise… THEY MIGHT LOSE.  However improbable that may seem!

geoduck

Apple?s office of corporate counsel probably feels like it has balls the size of Mercury right now

Now THAT’S the quote of the week.
wink

Joe J.

The primary difference is that Apple is making the BULK of all profits in the mobil world because they actually sell something that is the cornerstone for the rest of the market. Google is missing that component by relying on 2nd and 3rd party handset makers

And every time you search Google on your iPhone, Google makes advertising revenue.  Every time you search Google on an Android phone, Google makes advertising revenue.  See where I’m going here.  Google’s model is “the more people online, the better it is for us.”  They didn’t buy android to compete with iOS.  They bought Android to make it easier for handset makers to develop smartphones, so that more people would be able to buy them, and more people would be searching online.

MattO

that statement sounds a little strong, here?s what Apple?s lead barrister, Stephen Burley, said: ?Once the Galaxy Tab goes to a purchaser who invests and purchases apps on the Galaxy Tab, we have lost them forever in relation to apps and interactivity because they will then be Android people.?

The quote is from The Register and does not include a source. A google search also finds the quote at Know First http://www.knowfirst.info/forums/showthread.php?t=40263 who sources The Register.

The Register and Know First are not known for their impartial reporting. The Register regularly does give sources for its statements. No direct source for the quote could be found in a google search. Any searches including Stephen Burley and four separate phrases from the quote did not turn up any such quote other than the two mentioned.

Honest reporters and comments check their sources before posting. Any further comments from the posting member should be carefully checked for accuracy.

MattO

The Register regularly does give sources for its statements.

That should have been ?not?.

The Register regularly does not give sources for its statements.[

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Honest reporters and comments check their sources before posting. Any further comments from the posting member should be carefully checked for accuracy.

Ok, apphole. I wrote to the author of the story and asked for a source, which would have been the polite thing for you to do before calling me and him and his publication out from behind an anonymous screen name.

And FWIW, your take on The Register is beyond wrong. Yes, they have an opinion, lots of them, many contradictory. Yes, their writers go at it with wit and attitude, lots of it. Kind of like Bryan here on TMO. Having an opinion and attitude does not change the truth. And that’s what we’re going to get at here when Mr. Chirgwin writes me back. And that’s what I will gladly share here, and await your apology which won’t come because you’re an apphole (and not in the good way Denis Leary celebrates).

Nemo

My Dear Bosco:  Lawyers make their most persuasive arguments.  While it is clear that the sell of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab, wrongfully using Apple’s IP, its designs and technology, would deprive Apple of significant sales, that merely says that one who infringes on Apple’s IP is better able to compete against Apple.  However, Sansung’s competing by infringing on a competitor’s IP, here Apple’s IP, is morally wrong and legally actionable, so that Apple is entitled to both damages and injunctive relief that fully compensates it for whatever sales Samsung has obtained by stealing Apple’s IP and that prevents such sales from occurring in the future. 

And it seems that courts on several continents are becoming persuaded that is exactly what Samsung has done, infringe on Apple’s IP.  However, whether Samsung’s ill gotten sales would be permanently lost to Apple is dubious, at least where the court provide Apple with effective relief in the form of injunctions and damages.  Also, studies here suggest that Google and its OEM’s Android sales are ripe for Apple’s picking, as their customers are pining away for iPhones and iPads, and, of course, Apple is not passively letting Samsung compete against it and make sales with Apple’s own infringed IP.  So, if Apple obtains the injunctions that it seeks, Samsung will never be able to make its illicit Android tablet sales, not that Samsung has been selling that many Galaxy Tabs in any event.

What is really telling and supportive of the foregoing is who is crying hold and pleading for quarter.  It is not Apple; it is Samsung.  Samsung went to Apple on bended knee and asked for quarter.  Dear Bosco, if that be weakness and defeat, I am sure that Apple will take it over your rather unconventional view of Samsung’s strength and victory.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Can the moral outrage Nemo. Apple plays the same immoral IP infringing games with technology it didn’t develop and does not own. Speaking of which, you mentioned recently, as noted by John, that Apple had indeed licensed Sammies essential wireless patents that Sammie has turned around and sued Apple for (immorally, I might add) appropriating into Apple products without license. Care to provide a source for you claim?

The real trouble with moral arguments in this space, is that they vary by jurisdiction. Germany, for example, the birthplace of the ShamWow and the SlapChop, seems to have granted Apple a mostly unenforceable inalienable right to the rectangle. BTW, there’s a reason that kind of IP absolutism is as morally repugnant as centuries of Catholic persecution of Copernicans. It’s that it denies truth in favor of orthodoxy. It assumes that only a small cadre are capable and qualified to invent and extend, rather than all comers. It’s inherently anti-democratic and anti-human. That’s what you’re embracing when you make a moral issue out of it.

Ross Edwards

Can the moral outrage Nemo. Apple plays the same immoral IP infringing games with technology it didn?t develop and does not own.

Can the false equivalence, Bosco.  Apple’s IP brinksmanship tends to be unidirectional, with Apple being infringed rather than infringing.  Far more often than not, when Apple discovers that someone already has the technology they need, Apple whips out the checkbook—but they do this early, quietly, and from a position of strength, so it doesn’t become the next day’s tech news headline.
  Microsoft, for many years, did much the same thing in much the same way, until they turned to embrace-extend-extinguish and giving away category-killer tools as effective, if somewhat more brute-force, approaches.

Nemo

Bosco:  Let’s get are facts straight.  While I believe that infringement, at least intentional infringement, is immoral as well as illegal, my principle objection and primary argument against Samsung is that it is trying to compete against Apple by infringing on Apple’s IP.  Infringement is a legal term, which means that the infringer, here Samsung, has violated one or more of the exclusive rights set forth in either the Copyright, Patent, and/or Trademark Acts.  That is a violation of law; it may also be immoral.  But what I focused on, supra, is Samsung’s illicit infringement, which several courts seems be saying that there is evidence of Samsung’s infringement, at least enough for several of those courts to grant Apple preliminary equitable relief.  That is an illegal act. 

I also think that there is enough in the record to conclude that Samsung’s infringement is also immoral.  I find it persuasive that such close copying of not merely Apple’s utility patents but also, shockingly, of Apple’s designs is most likely intentional infringing copying of Apple’s designs and technology.  Indeed, apparently the case for one of Apple’s utility patents was so strong, that Samsung’s lawyer conceded in open court in Australia that Samsung infringe and, thus, would not contest Samsung’s liability on that particular patent. 

And, of course, it is a running joke on the Internet about how closely Samsung’s Galaxy Android devices resemble Apple’s current iPhone 4 and iPad 2.  However, the courts considering that issue are telling Samsung that the joke is on it, but curiously, Samsung isn’t laughing.

And no, I did not say that Apple had licensed Samsung’s FRAND patents.  I recited Apple’s allegations which stated that, with regard to those FRAND patents, Apple had either licensed them or Samsung had failed to timely and properly disclose those essential patents to the standard setting organization, as it was required to do, or Samsung had failed to offer Apple FRAND terms for its FRAND patents, as Samsung was required to do.  That is part of Apple’s answer to Samsung, and that is what I said.  Samsung having filled suit does not refute Apple’s allegations, nor do Apple’s allegations refute Samsung’s claims of infringement.  The truth of the matter must be determined in the court, where we shall see whose allegations the evidence supports.

And while it is true that law and morality can vary in different jurisdictions, that is okay, because Apple and Samsung are parties in each jurisdiction, which shall render judgment according to its laws.  But whatever the morality of the jurisdiction—and in all of them intentional infringement is immoral, as well as illegal—the law recognizes that intentional infringement makes the infringer more culpable and, thus, deserving of more severe sanctions.  So while the law and morality are not in perfect correspondence, the law, upon discovering the malum in se act, punishes the perpetrator of such acts more severely, because immorality is wicked, and wickedness must not be tolerated.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

And that?s what I will gladly share here, and await your apology which won?t come because you?re an apphole (and not in the good way Denis Leary celebrates).

Well guess freaking what? When I write nicely to authors of stories asking for a reference or clarification, they usually write back.

Mr. Chirgwin notes that the quote came from court transcripts, which are not available online. He also notes another online story that does not source his—and that is apparently beyond the limited Googling abilities of MattO the Incredulous.

I thank MattO in advance for his apology for calling my credibility into question here. Not that he’ll do it, but I thank him anyway.

UPDATE: In my haste to post, I failed to note Mr. Chirgwin’s 2nd source, a reporter who Chirgwin knows was present in the courtroom. Serious Google fail, MattO. Thanks for playing.

webjprgm

Thanks for the info Bosco.

BTW, MattO could have pointed out the lack of source more politely, and Bosco could have responded “Oh, sorry about that. I wrote to the author and here it is ...”.  No need to argue back and forth if everyone is polite.  We’re all just seeking the truth.

webjprgm

I admit to personal bias in Apple’s favor, but doesn’t Amazon Fire’s look-and-feel show that its quite possible to make a tablet that doesn’t copy Apple’s so directly?  And Windows Phone 7 is also a different look-and-feel.  So Samsung needs to change theirs up a bit to be less of a direct copy, or else give Apple some very favorable cross-licensing terms.

Again, I must admit that I’ve never seen a Galaxy Tab in person, so I can’t say from personal experience how much of a copy it is of the iPad.  It just sound like it is from what I’ve read.

MattO

Bosco, I reiterate: Honest reporters and comments check their sources before posting. Any further comments from the posting member should be carefully checked for accuracy. and I add: Quoting out of context by nefarious reporters such as we have seen from The Register and Know First is not in the sphere of being professional. From what I see in this one discussion, you also seem to be outside that sphere. Your attitude does seem out of place, within the quality of discussion of the other participants on this article.

Also, your accusations and crude remarks would usually be reprimanded or at least given warning by an editor of most other respected sites that encourage respectful discussion.

I still would recommend that you carefully check for accuracy, relevance in context and, especially important, to practise civility with any further comments you make on any public forums.

Terrin

Since Google’s whole purpose for providing free apps is to acquire information from the users of the apps to make its search services more valuable to its customers the advertising companies it only makes sense Google makes its apps available on as many platforms as possible.

Apple is a hardware company who’s only reason for making software is to make its hardware more attractive. The user of the hardware is Apple’s customer. Why would Apple make software for competing hardware that utilizes what Apple (as well as other companies like Oracle and Microsoft) views to be based on a stolen property?

On further review, Apple?s Barrista Burley shows an even bigger weakness with Apple?s approach to mobile. Google makes its best apps available to iPhone customers, but Apple does not make its best apps (or any for that matter) available to Android customers. And so Burley justifies Apple?s request for an injunction with the fact that Apple doesn?t even bother to engage that market. It?s kinda funny watching a weasel represent a rat.

RonMacGuy

Also, your accusations and crude remarks would usually be reprimanded or at least given warning by an editor of most other respected sites that encourage respectful discussion.

MattO, Just two weeks ago Bosco was reprimanded for telling another poster to “do the world a favor and go f$%^ himself” - but with the real word.  Unfortunately for all of us on MacObserver, this reprimand did not come with banishment from the site.

Bosco is a pathetic individual, pure and simple.  Tells someone to go $%^& themselves, and then two weeks later tells someone the polite way to do something and demands an apology from him.  What a hypocrite.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Terrin: The world does not revolve around Apple’s business model. I know very well what it is. I know that there’s a snowball’s chance in San Francisco that Apple would ever create software for Android and release and/or sell it on the Android Market, or even just the first part. The fact is, though, that they are more than free to make these Android customers their own by engaging them. Google’s track record suggests that Google would not hold up any Google apps to the extent that the FCC wants to know why (Google Voice). Google would not try to require Apple to share 30% of app-related content sales. And yet, Apple won’t play, and then their point man in Oz insists that (presumably, because it won’t play) customers who buy a competing device are lost forever. That elephant in the room is the easy remedy of engaging those customers.

MacFrogger

A perspective on Bosco - and why he is a valuable member of this forum: I get all my Mac news here, and yes up front I too will admit a pro-Apple bias.  Even though I rarely post a comment, I feel that all you guys (are there any women here?) contribute in your own way to make this site a lively and informative one. 

Bosco’s role is that of the antagonist, the provoker, the challenger - and yes, sometimes (often?) he goes over the top and becomes impolite.  But he’s treated impolitely and disrespectfully by others too (often pre-emptively!), labeled an idiot (which he is not!), and because the “norm” has become a SNL-ish “Jane you ignorant slut” type of dialog when others engage with Bosco it’s become a cycle that’s hard to break!

So for the record: Even when Bosco turns out to wrong, I appreciate the fact that he brings up points and issues that challenge the thinking of all of us Mac fans.  He forces us to deal with our own pro-Mac biases.  And yes, all of us have to admit that Bosco has turned out to be right, and not just on one occasion! 

So what of the tone? The sometimes nasty way all of you deal with Bosco and vice versa (except of course for the always-gentlemanly Sir Harry).  Well, it does make for good reading and a lively site!  From Bryan’s perspective, it has to be good for MacObserver as people WANT to come to a site where there is lively discussion and passionate disagreement!  This was the whole formula for success of the Jane Curtin/Dan Akroyd schtick that lives on today in so much of talk radio and cable TV.  An always-polite site where everyone agrees in reserved tones would be pretty boring, right? (Think cocktail party - snooze!!)

So here’s my take: Bosco is a tremendous asset to this site, as he provokes us and challenges our thinking and through the process all of us become better informed.  Like everyone, he’s sometimes right and sometimes wrong.  He does go over the top at times (Note to Bosco: the f word is always overkill!), but I for one am glad he’s here and hope he stays.  (I certainly hope Bryan never bans him!)  But a final note to Bosco: You have responsibilities here too dude, besides the obvious (like avoiding the f-bomb)...

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Frogger: Some here are just very sensitive, can dish out insults repeatedly and then get their panties in a bunch when one comes back. The f-bomb was a rare one here. Well, other than rattyuk in the forums, he’s all over the f-bomb. Unfortunately for history, the comment that provoked it (which was beyond out of line) has been deleted too, so we just have one poster’s selective account of the event.

This forum is not about me. I find it funny that some who repeatedly dish it out at me and who I mostly ignore would really like to have me banned, much as they root for Apple’s competitors’ products to be banned. It’s like they have a banishment fetish. In the real world, there is competition and disagreement. Having been deeply immersed in Apple culture for the better part of two decades, the worst of it is the “we’re so much better than [insert competitor] and in a perfect world, we’d dominate and [competitor] would disappear” attitude. That attitude leads people like MattO to think that Apple’s stuff can’t possibly stink (and anyone who says so is making stuff up and biased), even when it so obviously does.

lrd

When your enemy shows weakness, do you let them live to fight another day? Or do you go for the jugular and kill them if you can?

With all that’s happened and all that’s going on, I say Apple should try to kill Samsung’s efforts in Austrailia altogether.

It won’t be a death blow; but it will sting nonetheless.

MacFrogger

That attitude leads people like MattO to think that Apple?s stuff can?t possibly stink (and anyone who says so is making stuff up and biased), even when it so obviously does.

Bosco: I can’t comment on what MattO thinks, but I will say this: that is not a shared belief by most of the Observers at this here cafe, even the barristas.  If you need any proof, read John’s recent piece on Safari.  I think even you’ll admit that this was not the first time Apple-critical pieces (and comments) have appeared here, and won’t be the last.  Besides yours, of course!  wink

jameskatt

Apple’s Deal to Samsung:

1. 10% of your gross phone revenue.
2. Death Penalty for your lawyers.

That is only fair.

BurmaYank

“Apple?s Deal to Samsung:
1. 10% of your gross phone revenue.
2. Death Penalty for your lawyers.”

No, Apple can’t even afford to pay the cost of that “deal”.  ALL possible deals would be far too expensive for Apple - I’m hoping TC will nix every deal that tolerates the marketplace existence of Samsung’s purloined iPad-clones (as I think SJ would have done as Apple’s CEO). 

This lawsuit is NOT about money.  It’s about Apple’s future and core principles.

Log-in to comment