Judge: Samsung's case against Apple over 3G is "ridiculous"
0. phoneArena 23 Jul 2012, 10:07 posted on
Apparently, it is not only us, consumers and media, who are completely tired of the never-ending legal drama. Australian Court Judge Annabelle Bennett has recently declared the latest Samsung vs. Apple case "ridiculous"...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
4. frydaexiii (Posts: 1425; Member since: 01 Dec 2011)
Really? 3G isn't something a company can own, but a rectangle is? These judges should really do some research before sitting in that high chair. Why do you think Samsung is sueing Apple but not the other companies who are also using 3G?
11. taz89 (Posts: 2014; Member since: 03 May 2011)
3g patents is considered ridiculous where as a patent for rectangle is considered good or a patent for bounce effect is considered good..agree that some judges are stupid
5. TDUBB15 (Posts: 2; Member since: 23 Jul 2012)
that is funny, if Samsung wants to hurt Apple this isnt the way. Trying to patent 3g would hurt ever company who provides cell phones as well as the companies who provided the services. the biggest part is we are all in 4G and 4G LTE. its like Samsung is trying to file their taxes 2 yrs behind. lol
26. tedkord (Posts: 9954; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
3g is already patented. But the patents are FRAND patents. That means the owners are required to license them fairly and without discrimination.
The question is, are Samsung trying to charge Apple an undue amount, or are Apple simply unwilling to pay what others are? A court will have to decide that, but banning a device over a FRAND patent is a tough sell.
6. Aeires (unregistered)
This was probably a result of trying to fight back and it's sad it had to come to that level. As for Apple mediating, obviously this judge hasn't read about Apple's stance on such things.
7. plgladio (Posts: 314; Member since: 05 Dec 2011)
A technology Apple wants to call it FRAND, but a rectangular size or rounded icons are very important. I'm getting angry on Apple now. Ridiculous Apple...
28. tedkord (Posts: 9954; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
It is FRAND. The patent owners agreed to FRAND terms.
Now, if you want to debate the validity of many of Apple's patents they are suing over, that's a ripe topic, due to prior art, obviousness, etc...
8. thebest (Posts: 231; Member since: 08 Jul 2012)
iphone 5 with lte is about to come and they are yet to solve the 3g dispute
32. iamcc (Posts: 1319; Member since: 07 Oct 2011)
Even if the iPhone5 ships with LTE it will still rely on 3G for phone calls etc...
9. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 10659; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
Looks like Samsung is desperate for anything now. This all could have been avoided had they just been more original in their UI and phone design.
58. aikonix (Posts: 60; Member since: 08 Apr 2012)
go look at samsung touchwiz devices BEFORE android and iphone were even THOUGHTS of... then tell me who copied who
13. ojdidit84 (Posts: 455; Member since: 16 Jul 2011)
Wait a minute, isn't this the same judge that's been overseeing all of the Apple v Samsung cases in Australia whose husband works for the firm representing Apple in Australia, 5 Wentworth, which she also used to work for? I fail to see how having her as the judge overseeing these cases, sworn in as a federal judge or not, isn't a conflict of interest.
14. cdnfreak (Posts: 26; Member since: 13 Mar 2012)
FRAND my ASS, Samsung develops a Technology which benefits all Companies. They allow Qualcomm to use it in good faith, However Apple has chosen to revoke that good faith and as such are being sued. When has apple ever given anything to the good of the industry?
18. dmn666 (Posts: 244; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)
LMAO - Crapsung fanboys are out with their typical factory worker like mentality. Listen up, Qualcomm doesn't give a s**t to Samsung. They along with Ericsson, Nokia DEFINE the telecom technology. Samsung and other OEMs just use them to make phones, dishwasher and whatnot.
I understand you don't like Apple. But don't forget the difference between developing technology and running factories. It's a pretty big difference. Samsung never invented a s**t. They just steal others ideas and mass produce for a cheaper price at their sweatshops.
23. willard12 (Posts: 1516; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
"We have been shameless about stealing great ideas.". - Steve Jobs. I think you have the wrong company in your dissertation on stealing. But don't let the facts and actual admissions from apple interfere with your blind fanboyism. Because, we all know Apple invented slide to unlock, rectangles, the color black, notification ,menu, turn by turn navigation, answering a call with a message, and 3g. When the apple innovates enough to get 4g later this year, I'm sure they will have invented that too. So...based on the quote from your great leader, who steals?
25. dmn666 (Posts: 244; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)
You got pathetic reading skill. In your tiny world whoever doesn't like Crapsung always likes Apple. You are actually worse than a typical blind apple fan
31. Owlet (Posts: 450; Member since: 21 Feb 2011)
Wait! Don't forget white! Color white too. They were the first in the world to make a cell phone in ground breaking rule bending revolutionary color black! And if that wasn't mind blowing enough, they went even further with their unbelievable innovations and made a WHITE one! It's just magical.
39. parkwaydr (Posts: 572; Member since: 07 Sep 2011)
Qualcomm doesn't care about Samsung?
Please if your going to argue, know your stuff before you speak. Qualcomm contracted Samsung to assist them so they don't have to worry about a shortage for the s4 chipset.
7/04/irony-samsung-start-making-qualcomms-snapdragon-chips/?maneref=http%3A%2F%2Fww w.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fhl%3De n%26gl%3DUS%26ie%3DUTF-8%26source%3Dandroid-browser%26q%3Dqualcomm%2Bchips %2Bbased%2Bon%2Bsamsung%253F
42. dmn666 (Posts: 244; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)
LOL - let me give you some free tips. Samsung NEEDS those S4 - not the other way around. I guess you know about LTE. TSMC and UMC will be churning out the majority of Qualcomm chipsets. Leftovers will go to Samsung. That's how it works in the chip industry. TSMC is everyone's preferred fab - UMC/GF is the second choice. If there's still supply shortage, fabless companies try to book SMIC. Then comes Samsung - at the very bottom of the list as a fourth tier fab.
44. parkwaydr (Posts: 572; Member since: 07 Sep 2011)
apparently, the point of the article was lost on you.
46. dmn666 (Posts: 244; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)
Actually you're the one who brought S4 into this discussion. Now you're feeling lost.
Like you said Qualcomm is loaded with orders. That's why Samsung might end up getting a fraction of its orders and US market is very important for Samsung. For now they need S4 very much. Whenever a chip maker needs extreme volume, they contract the lowest tier fabs like Samsung. Please do your research on the fabs and find out who are at the top (TSMC, UMC, GF, SMIC, etc.)
On a side note, the best thing about Exynos is the GPU which is fully designed by ARM itself- Samsung doesn't deserve any credit there.They just licensed it. But the ignorant fanboys whine 24/7 about Apple using others' sh*t and how innovative Samsung is - funny sh*t.
Anyways, I was talking about 3G/comm. patents. Some guy was saying how QC needs others' patents. WRONG - QC makes most money out of their vast telecom patents (not from chipsets). QC, Ericsson, NSN, Motorola invent 90% of the comm. technology stuff that includes the protocols, multi-million dollar switches, BTS, etc. - not a commodity like cell phones or DRAMs which Samsung is good at making.
47. parkwaydr (Posts: 572; Member since: 07 Sep 2011)
not feeling lost, just dont have the want to sit and argue with a person ill never meet, but apparently you do, so, if it makes you feel better, keep talking, ill pretend to listen. ive said what i wanted to. dont need to say anymore.
48. dmn666 (Posts: 244; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)
Nope - I don't. You're the one who replied with some irrelevant S4 stuff. Thanks for not wasting time anymore.
15. ph00ny (Posts: 1138; Member since: 26 May 2011)
How is she still presiding over apple cases when her husband is a senior member of the firm representing apple and herself used to be a member of the same firm?
Her husband listed under the senior counsel
Judge herself listed under the alumni
22. groupsacc (Posts: 232; Member since: 28 Feb 2012)
Yep. Definitely conflict of interest there. Maybe they don't know.
16. Owlet (Posts: 450; Member since: 21 Feb 2011)
Wow! Apple bought Australia to add to their portfolio? She shouldn't be the judge in this case.
20. thedarkside (Posts: 652; Member since: 30 Apr 2012)
apple: oh em gee, samsung just came out with a phone in the shape of a rectangle!! we must sue!!
samsung: LOL! you mad bro?
apple: samsung, we innovated the rectangle technology on our iDevices. you stole that shape from us and we demand payment for infringing on such innovations!
samsung: you cant be serious? its a shape. no one owns a shape. youve lost your damn mind apple!
can it just stop now before apple finds a way to sue them for using batteries in their phones?
21. mas11 (Posts: 1034; Member since: 30 Mar 2012)
And Apple's claims against Samsung are just as insane.
24. flamemee (Posts: 3; Member since: 23 Jul 2012)
If that's the case, the "multitouch and slide-to-unlock on a mobile device with a capacitive touch screen" patent should be part of FRAND too. This patent system needs to be fixed. To put it in an analogy, why was Apple granted a patent with "the only way to flip a switch" if they did not even invent the switch itself??? Gestures should not be patented. It should be the underlying technologies that make it possible. Apple DID NOT INVENT THE CAPACITIVE TOUCHSCREEN!!! Don't want to knock on a dead guy... But didn't Jobs flatly refused to license multitouch and slide-to-unlock patent at all, while demanding to have access to cellular connectivity patents? So who's the real anti-competition/monopoly-bent?
38. parkwaydr (Posts: 572; Member since: 07 Sep 2011)
So suing over the shape of a device is completely acceptable but suing over something that is actually importing is ridiculous?
Someone, anyone, please tell how this chick made it thru law school, better yet, give me the schools number, if she made it, I may just have a chance after all.
41. Windsponge (Posts: 92; Member since: 01 Nov 2009)
I just want to say I love Apple products. I have had android they had way to many problems and they aren't as nice as Apple. That being said this site is just about phones and stuff and I am sick of the whinny Android fans trying to make it an Android site. You love Android that is ok but I don't. Talk about your product but leave mine alone. You haven't used or will ever use one. I have owned many Android and was never satisfied with them. You can buy what you want. I am glad for you to be able to do so. Leave us Apple fans alone. I just want to read about all the new stuff and who knows I might try another Android phone.
45. cdnfreak (Posts: 26; Member since: 13 Mar 2012)
You talk about leaving well enough alone, the problem is the idiotic company you worship doesn't. They don't care who it is, if another company competes with them they sue to wipe them from competition. What people are bent out of shape about is the way that this pathetic excuse for a judge is treating Samsung's IP. But nowhere does she talk about the ridiculous case that Apple has against Samsung.
52. JunkCreek (Posts: 407; Member since: 13 Jul 2012)
"...You can buy what you want. I am glad for you to be able to do so. Leave us Apple fans alone."
No I can't. Apple has banned it. Apple who didn't leave me alone to choose which device i buy and use. Apple who didn't leave me alone to love my choosen OS.
53. thinking (Posts: 130; Member since: 19 Jan 2012)
You are free to buy that expensive not value-for-money phone but Apple is also making it more expensive for me to buy my next phone (my phonemaker has to get his litigation money back) over stupid patents (some of which are not even infringed).
Besides, a lot of android fans here simply react to the pro-apple news and opinions on the site. Why is that wrong?
51. InspectorGadget80 (unregistered)
fIRST OF ALL it's irrelevant for suing with 3G. 2nd of all APPLE NEEDS TO STOP filing INJUNCTION AGAINST SAMSUNG and having the judge infavor of APPLE greedy needs