Samsung turned down Apple's offer of an olive branch 1 year ago
offer an olive branch to Samsung by offering them the license, but was turned down. Possible reasons why the Korean company would just say no to Apple include the latter asking too high a price for the license, or perhaps Samsung thought that with its countersuits, Apple would feel pressured and give in. Lastly, it just might have been that Samsung thought it was innocent and did not feel that it infringed on the patent.
What is interesting about the discovery of this deal was that it is known that the late Steve Jobs had threatened to finish off Android, and yet, by offering a deal to Samsung, Jobs had had his foot on the neck of the OS and then lifted his leg. The patent involved is number 7,469,381 which covers the scrollback feature of iOS that displays a background "texture" when a user scrolls beyond the edge of a web site or document. Apple enlisted this patent when it sought a ban against the sale of Galaxy products in the U.S. which was turned down as we reported.
source: TheVerge via electronista
1. Dr.Phil posted on 03 Dec 2011, 22:21 7
November 2010 was one year ago not two years ago. Unless I am missing something...
12. The_Miz posted on 04 Dec 2011, 02:06 6
So in addition to some of the tripe they put in their articles, PA apparently can't differentiate time as well.
2. hepresearch (unregistered) posted on 03 Dec 2011, 22:23 12
Apple: We will give you, Samsung, an opportunity to have our blessing to make Android products if you make us (cough) richer (cough)... ahem... more wealthy.
Samsung: Why should we bother?
Apple: Why not? We would not want to have to see you suffer if you pursue Android device designs... without our blessing. Savvy?
Samsung: Ummmm... haha... we see. Have a nice day!
Apple: Aww... what a shame. It would be terrible if we had to watch you pay some lawyers in a couple years... they really like getting paid a lot, ya know.
3. cyborg009 posted on 03 Dec 2011, 22:40 5
If apple followed the motto to Live n let others Live peacefully, we would be seeing a much drastic n awesomer technological revolution to what Lawyers r seeing now but on their front !!! .. Law schools must be having focus on teaching abt patent wars "How to get rich, the fast way" !!
4. Tech.Guru posted on 03 Dec 2011, 23:24 6
When it come to copying design & technology all the manufacturers are same. We can not tell Samsung is innovative than Apple or Apple is better than HTC. It looks like all in the same boat. But in recent time Samsung is more into copying thing from other manufacturer.
5. SlimSoulja86 posted on 04 Dec 2011, 00:28 7
Tech Guru, are you really a tech guru? I doubt... LOL
25. SlimSoulja86 posted on 04 Dec 2011, 10:51 1
lol, just for the fun of it....
41. elliotsilva posted on 05 Dec 2011, 06:06 0
"We consider that Apple copycat the Prada phone after the design was unveiled when it was presented in the iF Design Award and won the prize in September 2006. We take that to mean ‘Apple stole our idea." omg they predicted the future!
6. Firedrops posted on 04 Dec 2011, 00:34 4
Even my feature phone from 2005 had this "scrollback" feature described by PA. Don't even remember the model.
18. E.N. posted on 04 Dec 2011, 04:40 0
Yes because we totally had touch screen phones with full html websites back in 2005. Its actually really annoying how so many manufacturers copy even to the nitty gritty details. I definitely noticed Samsung's addition of the scroll back when watching videos of the galaxy products. Why are companies still copying a phone that has been supposedly outdated for years now? So lame Samsung
26. jbash posted on 04 Dec 2011, 11:09 2
actually we did, I had an hp touchscreen(with full html web) that ran windows mobile. It also had the texture background as well, probably why apple never seeked anything from MS
30. E.N. posted on 04 Dec 2011, 19:08 0
Feature phone? Really? Any images or links?
33. geedup (banned) posted on 04 Dec 2011, 23:51 0
Fandroids are delusional. I can't believe they would compare phones 2005 to an iPhone.
37. hepresearch (unregistered) posted on 05 Dec 2011, 01:09 0
Yeah, I can not believe it either... the iPhone in 2007 was so awesome... not like anything from 2005... it is so incomparable that it is darn near impossible that the iPhone would stoop to running on either GSM or CDMA networks... they were so mundane... it must have had LTE even back then because it was sooooo amazing! Yeah, absolutely nothing like it. It can not have been actually made of anything plastic, either... would have been too comparable to some other phones from 2005 if it had actually had plastic parts in it. All those Fandroids out there, even the ones who do not have an Android phone yet... well, that really means anyone who does not have an iPhone (do not even try to relativate with me! I refuse your interpretation of my statements!)... must be absolutely delusional.
7. Droid_X_Doug posted on 04 Dec 2011, 00:54 0
IMO, the primary reason that Judge Koh declined Apple's request for an injunction against Sammy was due to her concern the patent would be ruled to be invalid. Sammy probably came to the same conclusion (patent would be ruled invalid) when they were offered a license to the patent. Just because Steve had a bunch of patents that he could hold over the various industry players, doesn't mean he would have prevailed.
Guess what - Apple is not batting 100% in their patent enforcement litigation efforts.
Stay tuned. Cook up some more popcorn. In the end, Apple's attempts to enforce its patents (patterns?) is going to be a mixed bag. Which will lead to a business decision to cut more cross-licensing deals and it will be time to move on and focus on the business of making better smartphones than everyone else.
14. ardent1 posted on 04 Dec 2011, 02:10 0
Hey DxD -- when is ATT going to start their hostile takeover of TMobile USA since you are the guru of business speak???
21. remixfa posted on 04 Dec 2011, 08:51 4
hey look, another off topic and pointless attack. go figure.
27. Droid_X_Doug posted on 04 Dec 2011, 13:29 2
I really think that ardent took a financial hit on the AT&T-Mobile effort. He has been such a sourpuss ever since. Maybe he should change his ID to strident1? (Dunno)
34. geedup (banned) posted on 04 Dec 2011, 23:52 0
I agree Apple will win some and lose some. That's how it goes with patents. What's annoying is the people that want to attack everything Apple. Here we see they attempted a license deal. Pretty reasonable.
42. remixfa posted on 05 Dec 2011, 08:23 0
did you read the story at all?
8. networkdood posted on 04 Dec 2011, 01:21 5
How about a patent for how the on/off button works on a phone? Or, a patent on how someone speaks into the phone? How ridiculous is this going to get? Stay tuned....
20. robinrisk posted on 04 Dec 2011, 08:07 0
motorola has one that is a system and method to display the time on a phone. Talk about dumb patents.
However, they are not using that patent to sue OEMs out of existence.
10. Ikvnik posted on 04 Dec 2011, 01:42 2
How about one for how your thumb presses then home key. Rubbish
11. Ikvnik posted on 04 Dec 2011, 01:42 0
How about one for how your thumb presses the home key. Rubbish
13. jibraihimi posted on 04 Dec 2011, 02:08 2
Droid_x_dough, I thnk, u didn't read the transcript of Judge Koh's hearing completely.......... She refused to give injunction primarily due to the reason that, Apple was unable to prove that the sale of Galaxy series devices will cost apple some irrepairable damages...... Though she does observed that samsung product are infringing on Apple's patents.............. I thnk Samsung shud hav done the deal with Apple nd licensed their patent, if price was high then there is always sumthng called 'negotiation' nd ny ways Apple is biggest customer of Samsung, becoz most of the parts used in their iproducts are manufactured or licensed by Samsung........... Most of Android device manufacturers are already paying Microsoft, so thr was no big deal in it............
17. cheetah2k posted on 04 Dec 2011, 04:23 3
Of all the responses here, yours is the most in need of a spell checker
19. som posted on 04 Dec 2011, 06:49 1
Apple copied everything from Star Trek movies and patented it as their own.
22. remixfa posted on 04 Dec 2011, 08:53 0
correct me if im wrong, but wasnt apple already suing samsung for daring to exist outside of a parts manufacturer at this point?
36. geedup (banned) posted on 04 Dec 2011, 23:56 0
Samsung has gone out of their way to copy Apple products.
43. remixfa posted on 05 Dec 2011, 08:25 0
apple has gone out of their way to lie cheat and steal for the last 20 years, taco. Ol Jobs even smugly admitted it. Only a blind fanboy would turn a blind eye to that and then cry when others do it to them.
Besides, how much could samsung copy? the insides of an iphone are already made by samsung.
48. stealthd posted on 05 Dec 2011, 15:51 0
Apple doesn't copy successful products. They take concepts that are going no where and make them successful. Samsung just jumps into whatever market is already successful. So how much does Samsung copy? Only everything they make.
50. hepresearch (unregistered) posted on 06 Dec 2011, 05:41 0
... concepts that are going no where? Like the LG Prada?
38. Droid_X_Doug posted on 05 Dec 2011, 02:20 0
Apple wants their suppliers to be indentured servants. Within that context, Sammy should only supply displays.
The moment Sammy started offering something that competed with the iDevices, they were breaking the indenture contract. Got to keep the servants in their place. Otherwise, what will the world come to?
24. theBankRobber posted on 04 Dec 2011, 10:07 3
My 2004 Palm treo 650 could do what we do today except watch most videos, u had a app store, could browse the internet, play games, had a touchscreen. So how is it that Apple can say they invented these features and everyone is infringing on them when again in 2004 i was able to do all these things. The treo even HAD a on screen virtual keyboard you could type on the screen or use the stylus with.
32. geedup (banned) posted on 04 Dec 2011, 23:49 0
Are you seriously comparing a treo 659 to today's smartphones?
44. remixfa posted on 05 Dec 2011, 08:25 0
why not, it had MMS and cut n paste years before the iphone invented it, taco.
46. hepresearch (unregistered) posted on 05 Dec 2011, 13:05 0
ya know, every time I see that name geedup, it somehow reminds me of a name we used to see on here... taco!
45. hepresearch (unregistered) posted on 05 Dec 2011, 13:04 0
Sacrilege! How dare anybody compare that Treo to the iPhone! When the iPhone came out, all the smartphones invented previously just automagically became dumb-phones...
Haha... ha! =8-P
49. stealthd posted on 05 Dec 2011, 15:52 0
When did Apple ever claim they invented those features?
51. hepresearch (unregistered) posted on 06 Dec 2011, 05:46 0
... when they were granted the patents for them, even after some of the prior companies to develop the technologies were flatly denied the patents. So I guess Apple has never directly stated that they invented those things... they just managed to patent the stuff when the real inventors were denied the patents. As a result, many Apple fanboys have been claiming that Apple invented those technologies ever since...
28. buggerrer posted on 04 Dec 2011, 16:03 0
I WILL patent watching porn on the phone with one hand and mustrabating with the other!
29. ivanko34 posted on 04 Dec 2011, 16:40 0
How is it possible to put a patent on something so stupid ?
52. hepresearch (unregistered) posted on 06 Dec 2011, 05:48 0
Apparently patenting the number/symbol 270, as in the interstate highway number, is not so stupid after all...
31. geedup (banned) posted on 04 Dec 2011, 23:49 1
So here we have Apple reached out and offered a licensing deal. This is what the trolls said would be acceptable business practice. However since its Apple it is not acceptable to trolls. Of course it's fine if Microsoft or Nokia or anyone else does it.
53. hepresearch (unregistered) posted on 06 Dec 2011, 05:53 0
Nokia to Apple: Hey, we will let you guys design and build phones that use our IP if you settle with us to pay a licensing fee per unit... please settle with us. We have been reasonable.
Apple to Samsung: Hey, we will let you guys design and build phones that use your... ahem! I mean, our IP... if you settle with us to pay a licensing fee per unit... if you fail to settle with us, we will patent the necessary IP before you do, and sue the living snot out of you... please settle with us. We have been reasonable.
35. geedup (banned) posted on 04 Dec 2011, 23:55 0
I guess other than Apple letting everyone piss all over their IP nothing else would make PA posters happy.
39. Droid_X_Doug posted on 05 Dec 2011, 02:27 0
Ummm.... @geedup, just because Apple offered a licensing deal doesn't mean that Steve sh*ted strawberry ice cream. There is the matter of whether Apple had a valid patent (aka pattern). MS and Nokia have a very mature (and tested) patent portfolio. When MS and Nokia send infringement notices out, it is time to pay attention. Which is why MS is making more off of their licensing activity than they are making off of WP7. Apple is still in the process of establishing the validity of their patents.
40. BlazinEmperor posted on 05 Dec 2011, 04:55 0
"I WILL patent watching porn on the phone with one hand and mustrabating with the other!" LMFAO!!! Nice Patent Bruv!