Samsung prepared to sue 'immediately' if iPhone is 4G

Samsung and Apple. Apple and Samsung. Neither company is too fond of the other at this moment in time, and the reason for this is pretty clear. Samsung's had to pay out over a billion in damages, and Apple has had to commit itself to a legal battle with Samsung in the first place, despite patent licensing being offered in 2010.

Like any good courtroom drama, it continues after the actual settlement has been made. Now the battle for Japanese consumers could be heating up, with Tamotsu Shoji having decided that Samsung didn't infringe on Apple's patents for syncing audio and video to a device.

Samsung says that if Apple crams 4G-LTE into the next iPhone, they'll sue immediately. The Retina Display iPad already features 4G connectivity so it wouldn't be a massive stretch to drop the same into the iPhone. Samsung aren't going to make it easy for them to introduce this technology to the iPhone, for whatever reason.

Both companies are giants of the mobile industry, and neither seems to want to just go down. Instead they seem hell-bent on slugging away at each other until they either run out of resources to keep going. Even judges have had their fill of the conflict, with Richard Posner saying he's "had his fill".

Apple's iPhone already has 4G. Well, not really, but you do get a pretty little 4G icon on your status bar if you're with AT&T. Quite a few people seem to buy in that the current iPhone has 4G connectivity, even if it doesn't. It's a common misconception with AT&T's iPhone 4 handsets, but it could be argued that it isn't actually wrong to display.

Since all new iPhone news is going on rumor and speculation, you might as well toss a coin on whether it'll have 4G-LTE or not. There are only two possible answers, and both of them are covered with a single coin. That coin could run into much more in the form of damages, assuming another legal battle flares up between the two companies.

Source: Ubergizmo and Korea Times

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Torchlight II to be released September 20th

Next Story

Rumor: Nokia internal render hints at Windows 8 tablet reveal next week

78 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Septimus said,
They are morons. You buy the chips, you buy the license. A company of that size can do nothing else. Pathetic.

So using that logic, if a company buys processors from Intel or AMD they automatically get the patents to create their own processors using Intel or AMD technology do they?

Wrong. Just because you buy the processor in question doesn't mean you automatically have the rights to the patents as well. That's the reason why cross-licensing deals are around.

neo158 said,

So using that logic, if a company buys processors from Intel or AMD they automatically get the patents to create their own processors using Intel or AMD technology do they?

Wrong. Just because you buy the processor in question doesn't mean you automatically have the rights to the patents as well. That's the reason why cross-licensing deals are around.

Actually he's mostly right.

If I'm a company, and I buy Windows, I don't need to then enter licensing agreements with every company involved.

If I buy a Sony CD Drive, put it into a computer, and sell it, I don't need to license it.

If Apple buys a chip that was made by a manufacture that licenses it from Samsung, then Apple can do whatever they want with the chip without having to license anything. They aren't making new chips, they are simply including them in their product. This is 100% legal, and if it wasn't then technology would end because every company buys parts from other companies..

Ryoken said,
Actually he's mostly right.

If I'm a company, and I buy Windows, I don't need to then enter licensing agreements with every company involved.

If I buy a Sony CD Drive, put it into a computer, and sell it, I don't need to license it.

If Apple buys a chip that was made by a manufacture that licenses it from Samsung, then Apple can do whatever they want with the chip without having to license anything. They aren't making new chips, they are simply including them in their product. This is 100% legal, and if it wasn't then technology would end because every company buys parts from other companies..

Actually, your 1/2 right. If you buy Windows, you need to buy License agreements. Their a different license than the average home user. Same goes for the Sony CD-Rom Drive.

All I got to say is this- in the order they were patented and you tell me clustered it is..and people want to say that is not the direction Samsung was going.... they filed patents to show that...
I will let the evidence speak for itself

Masahiro Kando - http://www.google.com/patents/USD337569

Note the round corners in the one above --

Note the round corners and the three buttons -- also 2006 date on the one below

Samsung - http://www.google.com/patents/USD548713

The one that came after below
Apple - http://www.google.com/patents/USD558756

It would not surprise me if there is a loophole that Apple will find to force them to provide the technology.

If you can patent something after the fact of it being already part of a prior patent of the party you are suing and win there is nothing that surprises me about this.

Edited by redvamp128, Aug 31 2012, 7:51pm :

Good for them. Apple deserve to have all their iDevices banned after the bs they've pulled over the years and all the bogus patents they've managed to coerce and enforce.

Actually Samsung is required by law to license this if they happen to have a patent on it. Does FRAND ring a bell?

If they honestly think they can sue Apple for that, then they really are stupid.

Astra.Xtreme said,
Actually Samsung is required by law to license this if they happen to have a patent on it. Does FRAND ring a bell?

If they honestly think they can sue Apple for that, then they really are stupid.

If Apple can honestly think they can sue Samsung for rounded corners and shiny bezels, they are really stupid.

C wut I did thurrrrr

Astra.Xtreme said,
Actually Samsung is required by law to license this if they happen to have a patent on it. Does FRAND ring a bell?

If they honestly think they can sue Apple for that, then they really are stupid.

Are all LTE related patents FRAND? Being a standard and all you'd guess chances are they are, but do you know for sure?

LTE being a standard doesn't automatically make all the related patents FRAND.

IIRC Motorola just throwed some non-FRAND 3G patents at Apple. No matter if they are found guilty of infringement or not that still would mean that there are non-FRAND patents in the 3G standard.

ichi said,

Are all LTE related patents FRAND? Being a standard and all you'd guess chances are they are, but do you know for sure?

LTE being a standard doesn't automatically make all the related patents FRAND.

IIRC Motorola just throwed some non-FRAND 3G patents at Apple. No matter if they are found guilty of infringement or not that still would mean that there are non-FRAND patents in the 3G standard.

LTE is a phone radio standard, and it's not an actual feature that can be "copied", so yeah it would fall into the FRAND category.

Lexcyn said,

If Apple can honestly think they can sue Samsung for rounded corners and shiny bezels, they are really stupid.

C wut I did thurrrrr

Well you clearly don't know what the court cases were about... First start by learning what a patent is. Then dig up the list of patents that Samsung infringed on. If you really think the lawsuits were about rounded corners and shiny bezels, then you really are clueless.

Trolling is what you did thurrrr.

Astra.Xtreme said,
Actually Samsung is required by law to license this if they happen to have a patent on it. Does FRAND ring a bell?

If they honestly think they can sue Apple for that, then they really are stupid.

FRAND doesn't mean they are free. Samsung is only obligated to negotiate a FAIR and REASONABLE cost for the license to the technology. As in other things, Apple thinks they should get it for free, they have refused to negotiate a license and they simply use the tech without paying for it. They've done it to Motorola and to Samsung. If every other manufacturer pays for the license, why does Apple assume that Apple doesn't need to pay? Why does Apple claim everyone else owes them money, but they refuse to pay for the innovation of others?

They should just release the new iphone as 3g, and then release another one with LTE in 6 months... then let samsung sue, and they'll have enough to pay them from everyone buying the phone a second time!

I'm prepared to sue Apple if they release a "LTE" phone that isn't really LTE but claim it is... there.. take that!

neufuse said,
I'm prepared to sue Apple if they release a "LTE" phone that isn't really LTE but claim it is... there.. take that!

They had better be careful in Australia then!!!!

This is getting interesting. Without LTE the new iphone is pretty much useless if they want to keep adding features and with all the data that is needed on smartphones now adays. I was waiting on the next iphone but now I might just get the note 2.

Apple : 3g is unnecessary and is a battery hog.
Apple zealots :ditto, in fact i found that my iphone 2g is way fast than any 3g cellphone of the market.
Apple :4g is unnecessary and is a battery hog.
Apple zealots :ditto, in fact, i found that my iphone 3g is way fast than any 4g cellphone of the market.

Back in the day what the Commodore Amiga offered pre-emptive multitasking Steve Jobs proclaimed it was a trivial feature and the Mac did not need it. Color was also overrated.

This article misses the point entirely. Samsung owns 25% of the patents used in the LTE standard. Apple has no right to use LTE until it bows down and begs. Has nothing to do with "4G".

rdmiller said,
This article misses the point entirely. Samsung owns 25% of the patents used in the LTE standard. Apple has no right to use LTE until it bows down and begs. Has nothing to do with "4G".
LTE is a standard, Samsung is obligated to license it to Apple at a fair price.. if they refuse, and sue Apple, Samsung will once again be the ones paying in court..

Ryoken said,
LTE is a standard, Samsung is obligated to license it to Apple at a fair price.. if they refuse, and sue Apple, Samsung will once again be the ones paying in court..

Ryoken said,
LTE is a standard, Samsung is obligated to license it to Apple at a fair price.. if they refuse, and sue Apple, Samsung will once again be the ones paying in court..

Only if patents are actually FRAND.

ichi said,

Only if patents are actually FRAND.

LTE is. So they are. Or they are non-essential LTE Patents that Apple could just chose not to use..

Ryoken said,
LTE is a standard, Samsung is obligated to license it to Apple at a fair price.. if they refuse, and sue Apple, Samsung will once again be the ones paying in court..
Samsung offered to negotiate a FRAND license with Apple. Apple refused. So, instead of paying for the use of someone else's technology, Apple thinks they can just steal it. They did the same with Motorola, refusing to license the 3G technology and simply using it without a license. Why does Apple expect others to pay for their tech, but refuses to pay anyone else for what Apple uses? FRAND does not mean free.

Man... most of the comments on news articles like these seem to come from 13 year old kids that can't spell and just need to be in it for the lulz. Grow up, will you?

Lucas said,
Man... most of the comments on news articles like these seem to come from 13 year old kids that can't spell and just need to be in it for the lulz. Grow up, will you?

So says the person who wrote "lulz"

Lucas said,
Man... most of the comments on news articles like these seem to come from 13 year old kids that can't spell and just need to be in it for the lulz. Grow up, will you?

You do realize not all the commentators are from the US of A and English isn't their first language, right?

No, seriously, you do, right?

Lucas said,
Man... most of the comments on news articles like these seem to come from 13 year old kids that can't spell and just need to be in it for the lulz. Grow up, will you?

Grammar Nazi

i am teh spell bbetterz fer yoo mkkay sooreeez

It's not so much about the spelling or grammar but the dumb attitude, sorry I did not make my point clear. And English isn't my native language either and I do not live in the US of A. I'm just saying, at least if you're going to simply post dumb stuff instead of constructive comments, take your time to try and make your point as an adult rather than a angry internet mob who cannot even spell right. Just saying.

Has Apple invented Rectangles?. These crapy guys at Apple has a patent for rectangle refrigerator too, how about they sue every company makes refrigerator in rectangle shape. Apple is getting rotten....

kvnrprabhu said,
Has Apple invented Rectangles?. These crapy guys at Apple has a patent for rectangle refrigerator too, how about they sue every company makes refrigerator in rectangle shape. Apple is getting rotten....

Why do people keep talking about rectangles? Even Samsung did in their statement about the ruling. Most of Apple's design claims rectangular designs with rounded corners and glass screens were denied:

"But the jury rejected infringement claims based on patent D'889, which covers the iPad, and rejected eight of 13 claims under D'087 and which deals specifically with the rectangles-with-rounded-corners design of the iPhone"

http://techpinions.com/pinch-t...hat-the-jury-didnt-say/9465

Stetson said,

Why do people keep talking about rectangles? Even Samsung did in their statement about the ruling. Most of Apple's design claims rectangular designs with rounded corners and glass screens were denied:

"But the jury rejected infringement claims based on patent D'889, which covers the iPad, and rejected eight of 13 claims under D'087 and which deals specifically with the rectangles-with-rounded-corners design of the iPhone"

http://techpinions.com/pinch-t...hat-the-jury-didnt-say/9465

They are just biased. the world full of copies is just like the world we are living right now. who cares about innovation? Just copy and make your pockets full of money. I know that even apple copied Xerox Interface but that time for Xerox for suing apple has passed. lets think about innovation now. Look at Windows Phones. They are truly innovative

This is all apple fault ..apple start this game now doesn't want to play anymore?.. Fool you have to finish what you start it .!!! sue the apple!!

S3P€hR said,
This is ridiculous. did samsung invented 4G LTE?

Yep, they did.

Just like Apple invented rounded corners and colourful icons.

javagreen said,

Yep, they did.

Just like Apple invented rounded corners and colourful icons.


Come on I am not an apple fanboy, Infact I have a Windows Phone. but this is like a kid game. you got to give apple some credit for revolutionizing the industry of smart phones. every people made fun of apple including steve balmer when they introduced iPhone and they never changed their formfactor, but even samsung owners admit their phones are iPhone Copy. Even the packaging and ad campaigns are apple's copy, but Technology is not a form factor. Samsung is not LTE inventor. don't get me wrong, I am not saying because apple first introduced multitouch phones with this form they have the right to sue everybody, but samsung clearly blindly copied the whole interface straight from apple. I own a Nokia Lumia 900 and its nothing like apple. innovation is excelling at every part of your experience with your phone. couldn't samsung comeup with something innovative instead of copying and not getting sued? I know android using icons with rounded corners but why motorola, HTC are safe? because they tried to differentiate their interface. I hope you get my point

Edited by trojan_market, Aug 31 2012, 8:22pm :

javagreen said,

Yep, they did.

Just like Apple invented rounded corners and colourful icons.

They may have had a hand in its development, however-- 4G LTE is a standard! A standard cannot be patented in my view. Just like HTLM5 cannot be patented.

superconductive said,

They may have had a hand in its development, however-- 4G LTE is a standard! A standard cannot be patented in my view. Just like HTLM5 cannot be patented.

Right. It's also how the MPEG-4 standard can't be patented.... oh wait...

S3P€hR said,
This is ridiculous. did samsung invented 4G LTE?
I guess it depends on what you're asking. Basically the answer is no, they didn't invent the specification for 4G/LTE. What they did event is the hardware specs required to make hardware work with the spec. As some else stated, if Qualcomm didn't license these specs, then Apple isn't covered.

If Qualcomm did license it, then you can't force Apple to pay more money on top of it. The fact is, Qualcomm did not license all of the patents for LTE hardware, because they designed their own workarounds because they were to cheap to pay for them. Whoever if Apple is not using those then they will be infringing on Samsung. The fact is, a USA court may not fine an infringement, but other courts likely will. Even if Sammy cant ban iPhone in the USA, if they prevent the phone from selling in other countries it will be plenty to hurt Apple.

The USA counts for the biggest majority of Apple's sales, but not all of them. Roughly 30% of Apple's smartphone sales are in the USA.

does samsung have the rights to 4g or something? Why will they sue straight away? Im all up for samsung getting back at apple but im a bit confused as to what makes them feel really positive about it.

yes and they will be able to sue for connectivity? hahahaha al judges in the world will make pay samsung for nonsense... as if iphone have 4g is because a company that licensed the tech sold to apple... also if apple calls 4g, "new connection tech" world will start calling it that way... Thunderbolt anyone?

iguanas said,
yes and they will be able to sue for connectivity? hahahaha al judges in the world will make pay samsung for nonsense... as if iphone have 4g is because a company that licensed the tech sold to apple... also if apple calls 4g, "new connection tech" world will start calling it that way... Thunderbolt anyone?
Samsung has a lot of LTE patents. (Being big in the whole development of lte and all ) Apple can't really put LTE in an iPhone without some type of samsung technology, patent and agreement. Without that Apple can be sued. I'm Willing to bet Samsung waited for the iPhone instead of the iPad for biggest impact.

Rudie32 said,
Samsung has a lot of LTE patents. (Being big in the whole development of lte and all ) Apple can't really put LTE in an iPhone without some type of samsung technology, patent and agreement. Without that Apple can be sued. I'm Willing to bet Samsung waited for the iPhone instead of the iPad for biggest impact.

i AGREE!!

Rudie32 said,
Samsung has a lot of LTE patents. (Being big in the whole development of lte and all ) Apple can't really put LTE in an iPhone without some type of samsung technology, patent and agreement. Without that Apple can be sued. I'm Willing to bet Samsung waited for the iPhone instead of the iPad for biggest impact.

It depends on what the actual patents and license agreements are. If Samsung invented some key LTE technologies, and Qualcomm uses and licenses those technologies in their LTE chips, and then Apple buys and uses those chips, Samsung has already been paid for their technology.

iguanas said,
yes and they will be able to sue for connectivity? hahahaha al judges in the world will make pay samsung for nonsense...

do you mean the same judges who claimed rectangle was invented by apple?

Rudie32 said,
Samsung has a lot of LTE patents. (Being big in the whole development of lte and all ) Apple can't really put LTE in an iPhone without some type of samsung technology, patent and agreement. Without that Apple can be sued. I'm Willing to bet Samsung waited for the iPhone instead of the iPad for biggest impact.

If the judge happens to be Lucy H. Koh! GOOOD LUCKKKK!

Greg Nowak said,

do you mean the same judges who claimed rectangle was invented by apple?

i didnt know the lawsuit was about a rectangle... i think sir... that u are a real idiot

iguanas said,

i didnt know the lawsuit was about a rectangle... i think sir... that u are a real idiot

Hooo i just remember... samsung put the nails in their coffin when in internal emails said that iphone needed to be copied as much as possible. What an *******

iguanas said,

i didnt know the lawsuit was about a rectangle... i think sir... that u are a real idiot

sadly some people need to read twice, until they realize that apple claims to be a legal owner of stuff known before columbus and vespucci happend to discover your continent

iguanas said,

Hooo i just remember... samsung put the nails in their coffin when in internal emails said that iphone needed to be copied as much as possible. What an *******

Which means they could have just made a 100% identical phone like the KIRF ones we see in China. But they didn't. Samsung devices dont look like Apple's...they do mimic some aspects...but so do Tv's and cars and yet no one is suing. Apple is suing because Samsung is kicking their @$$. Get over yourself.

Anthonyd said,
Instead of suing Apple, stop selling them your chips/components, and take them to the knee?
If samsung was selling the chips, then they would know if Apple was putting 4G-LTE in it. Secondly, the contract for the chips would obviously license them to use 4G-LTE as Samsungs patents would have been used in said chips.

Anthonyd said,
Instead of suing Apple, stop selling them your chips/components, and take them to the knee?

Way to shoot themselves in the foot. Isn't Apple their biggest client?

Anthonyd said,
Instead of suing Apple, stop selling them your chips/components, and take them to the knee?
Samsung would lose money, Apple would find another manufacturer

matejs said,
Samsung would lose money, Apple would find another manufacturer

It's not that simple to find a manufacturer that could provide same capacity and quality. e.g. McDonald's finding a different fries supplier.

Anthonyd said,
Instead of suing Apple, stop selling them your chips/components, and take them to the knee?

Because Samsung isn't that shortsighted. As stated above Samsung would loose billions, something the stockholders won't appreciate, and Apple will move on to other suppliers.

Anthonyd said,
Instead of suing Apple, stop selling them your chips/components, and take them to the knee?
Do you realize Apple is biggest Samsung's client and by far?

Anthonyd said,
Instead of suing Apple, stop selling them your chips/components, and take them to the knee?

I used to make comments like you, but then I took Apple to the knee.

a0me said,

Isn't Apple their biggest client?

No, that would be Sony.
Apple comes second, but almost tied with Dell and HP.

mr_sock_00 said,

It's not that simple to find a manufacturer that could provide same capacity and quality. e.g. McDonald's finding a different fries supplier.

you should see how Costco handles their sources
the head of that company admitted on tv how they use 3rd party sources
for any company that does want to sell to them.
Things arn't always as they seem.. regardless of experts that think
they know who's buying what.

edit:
by the way i seen a documentary authorized by them that had the president
answering questions AND i use to work their handling their stock.

a0me said,

Way to shoot themselves in the foot. Isn't Apple their biggest client?
NO! Anymore questions? Apple is their largest clients for buying smartphone components. Apple is not Sammie's biggest client.

ichi said,

No, that would be Sony.
Apple comes second, but almost tied with Dell and HP.

It's one of their biggest clients actually. Who do you think makes the screens for iPad, iPhone, iPod, and Mac's? SAMSUNG!