Samsung Takes Off The Gloves: Claims iPhone Wouldn’t Even Exist Without Samsung’s Technology

While Samsung and Apple begin tying their handwraps in anticipation for their court date next week, some newly published court docs are revealing all the drama the two have been saying about each other this past week, and it’s pretty eye opening.

By now, we pretty much know Apple’s side to the case. Last night, we even showed you guys an image that sums up their position in their patent case against Samsung. Before the iPhone — the smartphone world was big, clunky, and full of buttons. It was only after the iPhone, that OEM’s began releasing rectangular slates, minus all those gratuitous buttons getting in the way. BS. We know.

But up until now, we haven’t really heard Samsung’s side of the story. Sure, they’ve made some public statements here and there, but I more or less pictured them deflecting Apple’s attacks, not really going on the offensive. Boy, was I wrong. As revealed in the now public court docs, Samsung hasn’t been pulling back any punches, going as far as claiming that without Samsung’s tech — the iPhone wouldn’t even exist. Here’s a little excerpt from Samsung’s trial breif, as provided by The Wall Street Journal:

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.

Prior to the iPhone‘s announcement in January 2007, Samsung was already developing numerous products and models with the same design features that Apple now claims were copied from the iPhone. In the summer of 2006, Samsung began designing its next generation of mobile phones, based on the market trend of ever-increasing screen size. At that time, Samsung‘s designers envisioned a basic design: a simple, rounded rectangular body dominated by a display screen with a single physical button on the face.

As . . . documents confirm, Samsung independently developed the allegedly copied  design features months before Apple had even announced the iPhone. It did not switch its design direction because of the iPhone.

Apple‘s utility patents relate to ancillary features that allow users to perform trivial touch screen functions, even though these technologies were developed and in widespread use well before Apple entered the mobile device market in 2007. Samsung does not infringe any of Apple‘s patents and has located dead-on prior art that invalidates them.

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.

Long before Apple even announced any of its 3G products that use Samsung‘s standards-essential technology, Samsung had offered licenses for these patents (along with other patents) to virtually every major player in the mobile phone industry, successfully striking cross-licensing deals with all of them. After Apple released products that use the technology patented in the [two standards-essential patents at issue in the trial], Samsung similarly offered a cross-licensing deal to Apple, asking for a fair and reasonable royalty in return for Apple‘s use of Samsung‘s technology. Unlike all the major players in the mobile phone industry, however, Apple refused to enter a cross-licensing deal with Samsung.

Instead, despite the fact that virtually every other major industry participant was willing to take a license from Samsung for use of the standards-essential patents in this suit, Apple claimed that Samsung‘s patents are unenforceable.

Permission to speak freely? Oh, snap! Looks like Samsung just opened a big can of whoop-azz on Apple. But really though, it’s hard to argue with Samsung’s statement. Let’s just hope for a fair, and impartial judge. Curious to hear more on Apple’s side of the matter. Samsung’s full trial brief can be viewed here.

Thanks, Simpleankit!

[BGR]

Continue reading:




  • sergio batz

    POW right in the kisser!

  • Zenstrive

    So Jon Ive is a fraud, Steve Jobs is a glorified thief, and Apple is money making scam? Makes sense….

    • TheDrizzle

      Just keep in mind, this document was made by Samsung lawyers. I would say it is a little biased. They give no evidence to their claims. I’m ALL for Samsung smashing Apple in court, but lets not just believe everything Samsung says, especially in court. We’re not Apple fanboys after all.

      • Tony Scharf

        This is also not the complete brief, but just an excerpt. I am sure that the relevant internal documents are being attached. I think this is Samsung saying “you want to go nuclear? Ok. Lets go nuclear.”

      • DefaultUser

        I’m pretty sure Samsung is not going to go on record without having the evidence to back up their statements. I think their lawyers wouldn’t be that stupid ;)

        • TheDrizzle

          I agree, I just don’t want to take everything they say as truth just because I want them to win.

          • Chris Hall

            Their full documentation does include proof as well as several reasonable references to previous cases that show that Apple is seeking damages that are illegal to seek. In short, the damages (the entirety of profit made on the “infringing products”) is illegal to seek as the design pattent, even if valid (which it is not by other nature that you legally should not be able to patent a shape without regard to ornamentation such as text, color, etc), because the patent only covers the chassis of the phone, not the contents. Since people by Samsung devices for Android, Samsung’s brand name, and several other reasons, the infringer’s profit on the design would be minimal because people aren’t just buying it because “it looks like an iPad/iPhone/iPod touch”.

            In short (too late), Apple is treading some very thin ice and has been shown in this document, to be claiming things they have no entitlement to while showing disregard for prior art.

            The design of the i Devices is unpatentable with the stipulation that the design holds without merit to ornamentation and subtle design differences, you cannot seek full profits on a design patent for a chassis as you didn’t invent the insides either, and the software was just prettier than it’s predecessors not different enough to be considered new.

      • AGx

        Everyone who isn’t a blind fanyboy or that at least follows technology in a general sense knows that Apple hasn’t really invented anything in their iOS series. The iPhone and the iPad are great products but nothing more than evolutionary steps in technology. Windows Mobile and Palm had been pushing touchscreen phones for years. MS had been unsucessfully pushing tablets for years (bad timing IMO). Apple just “made them popular”.

        • No_Nickname90

          I for one agree to this. I loved the idea of the LG eXpo. It had a fingerprint scanner on it. And you was able to attach a pico projector to it, had a stylus and was a Qwerty phone. Running Win. 6 or something. LoL!!

          I thought it was a pretty cool phone. I see the iPhone as the 1st smartphone, not the best. It was cool when it 1st came out, but it wasn’t the best.

          • setspeed

            The iPhone can in no way be considered “the 1st smartphone”. When it launched it lacked basic capabilities that even feature phones of the time had, such as proper bluetooth support. It still can’t really be considered in the same league as Android and WinMo 6.x since there’s no file system to speak of and you can’t manipulate many sorts of files/documents.

          • No_Nickname90

            In my book. I understand your point of view, but for me it was.

          • setspeed

            Ah fair enough :)

          • http://www.facebook.com/kkabhi Abhijith Kannankavil

            “the iPhone as the 1st smartphone,….”
            it doenst even have any filesystem, bluetooth capabilities etc.
            not even multitasking. Even java phones were “smarter”.

          • No_Nickname90

            I think I also said the iPhone wasn’t the best. I never even had a cell phone yet when the iPhone came out. I thought it was the coolest thing on the block. Jeez. People these days. LoL!!

            After getting the Samsung Memoir I never wanted an iPhone again. Especially with a phone with the best camera at its tym. Though now I think I’m ranting.

      • http://twitter.com/sixesNsevens Nick LaVeaux

        Do you know what a “trial brief” is? It’s not the ENTIRE DAMN COURT CASE. Haha. Don’t expect evidence immediately. The trial brief mentions that they have evidence…. i don’t think they would lie to a judge about that in such a high-profile case with so much money/damages at stake.

    • satsmine2k4

      SIR Jon Ive is a fraud…? :)

    • AGx

      This is news to you?

  • JasonWhite

    That was a great read. Caused me several smiles.

    GIT EM, SAMSUNG!!!!!!

    • ntegrit

      I enjoyed this, as well. My first ‘Like’!

  • Alex Paulson

    Ba-dum-tss

  • Marsg

    I’m boycotting apple, I have switched to oranges

    • Del373

      An orange a day keeps the Apple away.

      …no wait…

      An orange a day keeps the lawyers away.

      …no wait…

      A patent a day keeps Apple at bay.

      …eh I give up.

  • hnldriver

    Let’s just hope fangurl koh doesn’t preside over this!

  • Samer Berjawi

    Oh yeah!!

  • Simpleankit

    Full Court Document is even more revealing.

    Pl check at http://docs.dpaq.de/1356-applesamsungcv01846doc1300samsungtrialbrief.pdf

  • Ismael Rodriguez

    “Fair and Impartial”? I don’t know. From the looks of some of the ridiculous judgements in Apple’s favor recently, I’d have to say that fair and impartial judges are few and few in between these days.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jamille-Browne/1184321457 Jamille Browne

    Samsung, its about effing time bro end this shiit, there can only be one!

  • JevyJav

    “Apple has admitted in internal documents that its strength is not in developing new technologies first, but in successfully commercializing them”…. The defense rests its case your honor :-D

  • Rajvir Singh

    The title should be “Samsung puts the Punching gloves ON, tries to knock some sense into Apple..

    • Dimitri Perrakis

      It could have been an ice hockey reference

    • http://www.facebook.com/lucyparanormal Daniel Tiberius

      Yeah, like Dimitri said, hockey reference.

  • sonofLA

    That’s bullshit, Samsung made the first iPhone for apple, why
    Didn’t they complain? did apple have spy’s ?

    • Phillip Hagger

      Because in general that’s the expected nature of technology. You build something and the next company builds on that. Then you build on theirs and back and forth it goes. Except Apple wants to build on others and then claim they invented it all and everyone else is copying.

      • sonofLA

        I have a good point, I just started reading the Steve jobs book, and he did in fact say a few times that apple did copy other technology and made it better…since reading this, I now have a clear understanding for the apple hate! Apple=hypocrite

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=708741524 Robb Nunya

      Why didn’t Goodyear sue everyone else for their round, rubber, air filled tubes that fit around wheels?

      • sonofLA

        U are correct.

  • Chun Kah Tuea

    So SONY should just sue both of them?

  • patapongirl

    This is not suprising at all – Samsung would have eaten up by Apple alive if they don’t have anything real and it’s just a matter of how far Apple pushes before they reveal all the things even at the expanse of their business revenue.

  • erich

    Its only a matter of time that Samsung decides to not sell Apple anymore parts to build their phones. Here comes the end of the Iphone

  • Nick V

    As long as Judge Koh isn’t presiding over the case, Samsung may be in good graces.

  • Xarias

    GO SAMSUNG!!!!!!!!!!!

  • LiiIiikEaBau5

    Dat made my day!

  • Jeffrey Evans

    Samsung makes a ton of money off Apple so I’m sure the inconvenience Apple have caused were livable. When Apple called Samsung pirates and thieves, I think it was the last straw. Like a little kid poking a dog, eventually Apple is going to get bit.

    • Del373

      This response by Samsung is essentially a “Oh no you didn’t! *finger snap*” in regards to Apples “pirates” comment. :P

  • http://twitter.com/SParKlngCyaNide SparklingCyanide

    Excellent article! Apple has been so deceiving and even tried to turn the situation around on Samsung who are really the ones who are deserving of compensation. This is going to blow up in Apple’s faces big time, just watch.

  • jj14x

    The difference however is that Apple paid Samsung to use their patented technology. Apple claims that Samsung is “copying” the design of their devices without paying Apple for it (or without their permission).

    Whether a rectangular device with a touch screen can be patented is a different question altogether – patent office needs some brains with common sense.

    – An Android user

    • PC_Tool

      “The difference however is that Apple paid Samsung to use their patented technology. ”

      O RLY? FTFA…

      “Unlike all the major players in the mobile phone industry, however, Apple refused to enter a cross-licensing deal with Samsung.”

      • jj14x

        Samsung had the option to not sell/license their patented technology to Apple either.

        They could pull the rug from under Apple even now by stopping sales to Apple – but they don’t. You think it is because Samsung is being nice? umm… I bet the millions they get in sales to Apple plays a bigger factor.
        I am a GNex user, so I get the stupidity of this patent. But saying “iPhone Wouldn’t Even Exist Without Samsung’s Technology” isn’t doing much to help Sammy’s case (even though it is true) – it simply doesn’t have anything to do with Apple ignoring Sammy’s patents.

        • PC_Tool

          “Samsung had the option to not sell/license their patented technology to Apple either. “

          Did you read the article? According to it, they tried to…and Apple refused.

          The rest, I cannot argue…since none of it is based in reality.

          You’ve decided you know what I think…

          “You think it is because Samsung is being nice?”

          …and that I have said things I have not…

          “But saying “iPhone Wouldn’t Even Exist Without Samsung’s Technology””

          I’d say “try again…”, but I think we would all really rather you didn’t.

          • jj14x

            I read the article (before my first post), thank you for asking. Did you try to understand the actual article while reading it? Or did you skim thru’ only the excerpt in this article and base you argument on that?

            When Apple refused to pay (or cross license) for the patented technology, why does Sammy continue to sell their parts to Apple? Why didn’t Sammy sue like crapple is doing now? (just because Apple “claimed” that Samsung‘s patents are unenforceable, doesn’t make it unenforceable)
            “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. ”
            Apple uses patented Sammy technology – yes.
            Sammy’s claim “iPhone Wouldn’t Even Exist Without Samsung’s Technology” is perfectly valid and true. No questions about it.
            But my question is “why does Sammy continue to supply the memory and other parts to Apple?” Sammy could cause significant impact/delays to Apple’s pipeline by making up fake shortages or other issues. Fact of the matter is that Sammy will take a bigger hit if Apple shops elsewhere for their parts, and so they will not risk this.

            Whatever.

          • PC_Tool

            Now I am wondering why you even responded to me in the first place, since your “points” have literally nothing to do with my response to you….unless you’re simply looking to argue with someone for no better reason than to try and prove you have a bigger e-peen.

            Well, by all means…go ahead ad impress all the girls.

            The statement in your OP about Apple paying is incorrect. Nothing else really needed to be said, but you can keep arguing about everything else I never commented on all you want.

            Have fun with that.

          • jj14x

            umm… last I checked, I am the op for this thread, so technically, you responded to me.

            “Impress all the girls” – was that your intention when you responded? if so, hope that worked for you… sheeeeesh!

            As a girl, I certainly ain’t impressed by ANY of your posts. And no, thankfully, I don’t have to worry about a e-peen or otherwise. PC_Tool – yep – tool is right.

            unsubscribed

          • PC_Tool

            I have officially given up on your ability to read.

            “I am the op for this thread”

            Thanks, Sherlock…I would never have known…even after having mentioned it myself in my last post. Durr….

            This is really simple, and I will try and explain it one last time:

            You made a statement in YOUR OP that was verifiably false, as demonstrated by the quote I responded with. It should have ended there. (or maybe even with a, “Actually, what I meant was…” since I still believe you were actually trying to make a cogent argument and simply mis-worded it.)

            Every single thing you have posted since then has been completely unrelated and irrelevant to that.

            If you still fail to grasp this, ummm….I certainly ain’t impressed.

            “PC_Tool – yep – tool is right.”

            Ahh…name-calling, and not even remotely clever at that. I’m shocked. I bet you were really popular in Elementary School, where that kind of thing was considered “cool”.

    • Taram

      Um… incorrect… did you read the brief? Apple *refused* to pay for the technology patents in question. They also refused the offer of cross-licensing agreements with the justification that they feel Samsung’s patents are ‘un-enforcable’.

  • NardVa

    Like the saying goes there is nothing new under the sun.

  • NardVa

    Lol @ Apple trying to patent the rectangle shape.

  • moises1204

    that means apple going to kick a couple more millions into the system packet to come out on top. F***K you apple.

  • TimTheK

    That’s quite a thorough “brief” but certainly brief in name only.

  • DYNK

    B*tch slap them back in da face Samsung!

  • http://twitter.com/Covert_Hops_Atl Covert Hops Society

    I think what is being overlooked here is not Samsung’s response. It’s the timing. They kept quiet, as if the bully of Apple has already won it’s fight, then at the last minute, pulled the trigger on this. And not just a “OH YEAH”???YEAH!!!!” type response, but a detailed “We were actually first at the technology and you were first at stealing” response.

    You ask how can they lose?…….Well, anything is possible. Look at all the drones that will stand in line to buy a slightly different device each time there is a new one released…..Yeah…..Humans are that stupid.

  • Burgs04

    I hope Samsung bends Apple over and gives it to them.

    I think Apple is a dying company (in the mobile area) and they are trying everything to hold on.

    Android phones are advancing faster then ever and seems like a new high end phone comes out about once a month.

    Apple just can’t hang with the big dogs anymore.

  • JaswinderSinghJammu

    Go get them Sammy.

  • Dave S

    Samsung should just charge Apple more for components, and then pay Apple to license the patents.

  • NIGHTSCOUT

    We all know Samsung has been making phones long before Apple, and will be long after Apple has filed for bankruptcy

  • SoupDawgs

    Siri is the classic example of Apple’s ability to market a feature. Apple bought Siri and markets it as the got-to-have-it feature on S4 (on a non sequitur note, what’s with fragmented non-availability of Siri on previous iPhones?)

    Cracks me up when Apple fanbois tell me Apple created Siri.

  • Jameslepable

    only when apple burns to the ground does steve jobs have my permission to… oh wait.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000536926719 Casey Cooter

    OH SNAP GURL

  • Steve

    Apple has sued or tried to sue everyone in the Android smartphone making game, which leaves me to believe that if Samsung pulled all manufactured parts supplied to Apple, no one else will supply them with parts. In short, Apple inserted ones foot in ones own mouth.