ITC: APPLE DOESN'T VIOLATE SAMSUNG PATENTS

[david_e]

SAMSUNG TRIAL FAIL

[kevinp]

This isn't the patent battle I'm waiting to see. The next upcoming one involves the patents concerning LTE.

[Phogg]

I am waiting to see if Samsung will keep their flex screen technology patents to themselves.

Doing so would not keep any other manufactorer out of any market, so I can't come up with a reasoning (other than graft) by which the courts might force them to cross licence. This move would move the highest product durability over all into an unnasailable Samsung forte until someone else developed a competing non-infringing process.

We will see if Samsung dares.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Phogg

I am waiting to see if Samsung will keep their flex screen technology patents to themselves.

You do realize that Samsung makes the screens for Apple's products, right? If Apple doesn't use the latest and greatest screens is because the two companies didn't agree on something. It's in Samsung's best interest to have Apple as a client, unless Apple is requesting that Samsung should make the screens only for Apple products.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You do realize that Samsung makes the screens for Apple's products, right?

Display panels for the iPhone 5 are made by Sharp, Japan Display and LG Display.
Not by Samsung.

[covfam]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You do realize that Samsung makes the screens for Apple's products, right? If Apple doesn't use the latest and greatest screens is because the two companies didn't agree on something. It's in Samsung's best interest to have Apple as a client, unless Apple is requesting that Samsung should make the screens only for Apple products.

For now, remember the first 3 gens of ipod touches, and first and second gen ipad's IPS display were made by LG, 4 generations of iphones (1-3gs) ips displays were manufactured by LG. only recently with the retina branded displays have they been manufactured by samsung. there is nothing stopping apple from using a diferent brands Super lcd2+ display in the future

[covfam]

oh and if i remember the screend on the nanno's and classics were manufactured by sharp

[Nexutix]

Wait for me, I will make some popcorn again, for all of us.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You do realize that Samsung makes the screens for Apple's products, right? If Apple doesn't use the latest and greatest screens is because the two companies didn't agree on something. It's in Samsung's best interest to have Apple as a client, unless Apple is requesting that Samsung should make the screens only for Apple products.

You do realize that Samsung can continue to make screens for iPple, right?
And that if Samsung has screens for.themselves that never shatter when dropped, but iPple does not, currently there is no place else to go for iPple.

It is, in fact in Samsumg's best interest to do.this if you look at how big the tablet market is and the potential for this development to dominate.

Compact discs did not take over from vinyl in pretty much two years strictly because of the advance in sound quality. The durability factor played just as great a role.

Durability is a marketable characteristic.

You do comprehend that. Right?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Display panels for the iPhone 5 are made by Sharp, Japan Display and LG Display.
Not by Samsung.

Originally Posted by covfam

For now, remember the first 3 gens of ipod touches, and first and second gen ipad's IPS display were made by LG, 4 generations of iphones (1-3gs) ips displays were manufactured by LG. only recently with the retina branded displays have they been manufactured by samsung. there is nothing stopping apple from using a diferent brands Super lcd2+ display in the future

My point was that Samsung doesn't have to share the patents, they just have to manufacture the screens for other devices. Would the discussion be different if the division that makes screens would be separated from the rest of Samsung?

Originally Posted by Phogg

You do realize that Samsung can continue to make screens for iPple, right?
And that if Samsung has screens for.themselves that never shatter when dropped, but iPple does not, currently there is no place else to go for iPple.

It is, in fact in Samsumg's best interest to do.this if you look at how big the tablet market is and the potential for this development to dominate.

Compact discs did not take over from vinyl in pretty much two years strictly because of the advance in sound quality. The durability factor played just as great a role.

Durability is a marketable characteristic.

You do comprehend that. Right?

I would expect the company to try to make the most profit from of the patent. The iPhone 5 doesn't have the best specs and it still sells. I don't see why you would think that the next model not having the most durable screen would change the minds of many.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The iPhone 5 doesn't have the best specs and it still sells.

I would think we'll soon have convincing proof that selling phones purely on hardware specs and new features only reaches part of the market for smartphone buyers.

In fact -- maybe time has arrived for Google to start advertising strengths of its OS to those users...because hardware makers usually just focus on hardware features.

just an idea.

[Ninjalawyer]

I AM TALKING LOUDLY.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

My point was that Samsung doesn't have to share the patents, they just have to manufacture the screens for other devices. Would the discussion be different if the division that makes screens would be separated from the rest of Samsung?


I would expect the company to try to make the most profit from of the patent. The iPhone 5 doesn't have the best specs and it still sells. I don't see why you would think that the next model not having the most durable screen would change the minds of many.

Your point being that Velcro didn't make a profit by keeping hook fabric fastenings in house only for the duration of the patent I supose?

You are brilliant!

I never realised before that it was impossible to maximize profit unless you maximise licensing to competitors who have far less in house manufactoring capacity than you do. Truly, you are a wonder.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

In fact -- maybe time has arrived for Google to start advertising strengths of its OS to those users...because hardware makers usually just focus on hardware features.

Only takes a little research to discover that you can sideload apps on Android.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Phogg

I never realised before that it was impossible to maximize profit unless you maximise licensing to competitors who have far less in house manufactoring capacity than you do. Truly, you are a wonder.

I wasn't talking about licensing to competitors (i.e. LG, Sharp, etc.). I was talking about manufacturing screens for their clients (i.e. Apple). When it comes to the part of Samsung that manufactures screens, Apple is not a competitor, it is a client.