Samsung: Apple wouldn’t have sold a single iPhone without stealing our tech

[ck_kent]

Another day, another Apple (AAPL) vs. Samsung (005930) trial. The two consumer electronics companies are preparing to do battle in San Jose, California next week, and now-public court documents shed light on the positions each firm is taking. On Tuesday, Apple told Samsung exactly what it thinks its technology patents are worth (spoiler: barely anything at all), and subsequent filings from Samsung reveal that the South Korea-based company has a few choice words for Apple as well.

As highlighted by The Wall Street Journal, Samsung's trial brief pulls no punches in telling the court exactly where it stands regarding Apple's repeated patent-related accusations. In short, Apple is the thief here, not Samsung. A few key excerpts (emphasis is ours):

Samsung has been researching and developing mobile telecommunications technology since at least as early as 1991 and invented much of the technology for today's smartphones. Indeed, Apple, which sold its first iPhone nearly twenty years after Samsung started developing mobile phone technology, could not have sold a single iPhone without the benefit of Samsung's patented technology.

For good measure, Apple seeks to exclude Samsung from the market, based on its complaints that Samsung has used the very same public domain design concepts that Apple borrowed from other competitors, including Sony, to develop the iPhone. Apple's own internal documents show this. In February 2006, before the claimed iPhone design was conceived of, Apple executive Tony Fadell circulated a news article that contained an interview of a Sony designer to Steve Jobs, Jonathan Ive and others. In the article, the Sony designer discussed Sony portable electronic device designs that lacked "excessive ornamentation" such as buttons, fit in the hand, were "square with a screen" and had "corners [which] have been rounded out."

Contrary to the image it has cultivated in the popular press, Apple has admitted in internal documents that its strength is not in developing new technologies first, but in successfully commercializing them. . . . Also contrary to Apple's accusations, Samsung does not need or want to copy; rather, it strives to best the competition by developing multiple, unique products. Samsung internal documents from 2006, well before the iPhone was announced, show rectangular phones with rounded corners, large displays, flat front faces, and graphic interfaces with icons with grid layouts.

Apple relied heavily on Samsung's technology to enter the telecommunications space, and it continues to use Samsung's technology to this day in its iPhone and iPad products. For example, Samsung supplies the flash memory, main memory, and application processor for the iPhone. . . . But Apple also uses patented Samsung technology that it has not paid for. This includes standards-essential technology required for Apple's products to interact with products from other manufacturers, and several device features that Samsung developed for use in its products.

It's clear that we're in for yet another action-packed adventure when the trial kicks off next week.

:view: Source

-------------

And Samsung is coming up with this now? What took them so long?

[DKT27]

And Samsung is coming up with this now? What took them so long?

One, better late than never. Two, most of the rich people are either idiots or Apple fanboys, including judges.

[Pedrito]

Maybe Apple bought Sony! :P

[calguyhunk]

... most of the rich people are either idiots or Apple fanboys, including judges.

It's not that most of the rich people are idiots ( :P ) but most of the Apple customers are rich idiots. I get the i-pad, but it's really hard to fathom as to why any self-respecting technologically aware person would even think of patronizing their x86 products (macs).

I guess it's just a social statement. "Hey you poor average middle class guy with that Lenovo thingy. Look at my shiny little overpriced (underpowered) plaything that my Daddy bought me. I don't know what processor it runs on, but I love it, 'cuz Steve Jobs told me that it's processing power is "sufficient"" :wtf:

[DKT27]

Totally agree. :)

[Levo]

Pound for pound an apple macbook is at par with a 1000$ notebook (except for the retina display) and still priced way higher,

besides now you cant even upgrade memory/battery with the newer ones.

What.s the logic in that?

[PurplebeanZ]

Not everything is about specs on paper ;)

[DKT27]

Well exclude the buttons, it looks very similar to me:

If Apple can say Samsung copies them, then Apple has fully copied Sony above. Infact, Apple has patented the exact outer shape of iPhone which it used to sue Samsung.

[Tweety.Abd]

The mobile industry is like a children's classroom, everyone copies and blames each other.